Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User refusing to notify authors when tagging their articles for speedy

69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of patrolling new pages - yet as far as I can tell, they have never notified an author of the fact that one of their articles has been nominated for speedy deletion. (Anyone who wants to can feel free to check.) I've left them a number of template messages about it (probably too many, but I was hoping they would get the point), then an actual note about it [1], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [2]. They then stopped altogether for quite a while, but today I was going through the new pages log and ran across a few articles they had tagged (most now deleted). I feel bad bringing this to ANI, since they contribute good work in other areas, but their continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as well as responses like this (repeated a number of times) shows that they don't have any plan to change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD, a Wikipedia policy, states, "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion...should notify the page creator and any major contributors." It's puzzling why the user is reticent to do this. Moreover, they were previously asked to notify article creators, and the IP received two suggestions to consider creating an account so that they could use Twinkle, which would have nipped the "notify page creator" issue in the bud. The corresponding conversation is confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification isn't mandatory or the policy would say "must" instead of "should". If this was part of a pattern of other behaviors, you might have a case, but if this is the only problem, I can't see a basis for admin action. It has been debated over the years, but suffice it to say that policy will likely never say "must". As Cyphiodbomb points out, notification is easier with Twinkle, but even Twinkle has the option to not notify the article creator, and in Twinkle preferences you can change the default to NOT notify. But yes, I think it is kind of rude to not notify, there just isn't anything in the admin tool kit I can use to "fix" it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis has said it all. As long as notification is not mandatory there's nothing we can do to enforce it. That said, I agree that it is uncooperative to not inform content creators of speedy deletions. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis is correct, it's not required, so... it's not required. "Should" is not "must", and should not be read as such. If anything I'd say the barrage of template messages to an IP user is a greater sin than their not doing something optional. It's clear that they've read and understood your message, so there's no need to keep at it. As far as I can tell, their tagging is being done in good faith and their accuracy is reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really reads the CSD templates. It would be much better for newbies if you could write your own reason why you are speedy-tagging the article, and for A7/A9/A11 particularly, apologise that it was for the encyclopedia's own good and suggest userfying or AfC as an alternative. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a longterm supporter of the idea of putting an obligation on those who tag article for deletion to inform the author, OK there are some exception one should make, but the current situation allows for biting newbies by deleting their articles without any dialogue. However that would require a policy change, and I'm loathe to change policy by criticising those who follow it, if you want to change policy file an RFC, don't take people to the drama boards for following a policy that you disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While "should" does not mean "shall", it is a stronger term than "may". Some time ago I read an explanation of this as applied to law, specifically in the context of traffic rules. A driver "shall" stop at a red signal, and "should" slow when approaching such signal; that the motorist did not slow before coming to a stop at a red signal does not mean they are, as a matter of law, not responsible for the guy who rear-ended them. In much the same sense, I argue that this should be our approach here; if this IP is not notifying when they "should" be, the IP should be subject to some sanction. Should means something that is normally followed unless there's some rational reason not to follow it (in this case, e.g., the editor is banned). I would go so far as to argue that when we use "shall" or "must" in our guidance documents, we're describing policy; and when we use "should", we're describing a guideline. Of course, it should be confirmed that this language is actually descriptive of the current practice (I really think it is: it's so rare to see someone not notify the author). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would go further: while disagreeing with WereSpielChequers - there are perfectly good reasons for not leaving a user message - but consistently failing to do so, even after repeated advice and reminders, constitutes disruptive behaviour. As such the account/IP is susceptible to indef blocking to prevent disruption to the project. They need to either start working with in community norms when CSD tagging, or stop CSD tagging (or of course, demonstrate a good reason to establish new norms). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

I mostly agree with Rich. I wrote this when De72 was the latest replied, abandoned it due to EC and being unsure if it'll be helpful but I'll post it now. While there's no simple admin action that can be taken, the fact that the guideline or policy says should rather than must or similar doesn't mean that the editor can't be sanctioned by the community for disruption. I don't know much about the development of the speedy deletion guidelines but I imagine there are a number of reasons why it's not mandatory. For example there are probably cases when it makes no sense to notify, and similarly if someone does one or two clearly legitimate speedy deletions every 3 years it's likely not worth worrying whether or not they notify the creators.

Remember there are plenty of other cases where the guideline says shall or should or whatever for similar reasons, it doesn't mean a person persistently refusing to do so even when most people feel they should isn't disruptive. (In other cases like here at ANI, the harm that comes from not notifying is accepted to outweigh the time wasted etc from people being force to notify even when it makes little sense so we do specify it 'must' be done.)

In this particular case, beyond the request from the OP which seems to have been removed (which is the IP's right), I see plenty of requests from others. So the OP's already been repeatedly asked. And replies suggestion something has to be spelled out as mandatory in some guideline or policy somewhere before you will follow resonable requests by your fellow wikipedians is rarely a sign of someone who is collobrating with good community spirit.

So you could try an RFC. Heck considering how many requests there has already been, you could even consider a topicban without an RFC if it's really merited. Whether any of that is merited or likely to suceed I can't say so I know to little about the case and history here. (Although the fact there's a template makes me suspect it may be disruptive.) Of course, if the editor involved is reading this hopefully they reconsider and none of it is necessary whatever the case.

I know some people will complain about a lack of clarity but remember that to some extent it's intended to be that way as wikipedia operates per WP:NOTBURO etc. For example, WP:SIG doesn't actually say you must sign. But it does say if you persistently refuse to sign that may be seen as disruptive and even that's fairly new [3] and people got in to trouble for persistently refusing to sign before it was explicit in the policy.

Similarly while the policy does try to outline what's allow and not allowed in signatures and is fairly explicit about a lot of stuff now, there are obviously grey areas or probably even stuff which just isn't mentioned. Yet if someone has a signature which seems disruptive to many with decent explainations of why, wikilawyering over whether it's actually forbidden by policy doesn't generally go well.

And you can come up with plenty of other examples. E.g. while I don't know what the guidelines or policies actually say, I'm pretty sure there's none which say 'you must leave edit summaries'. At most they may say something like WP:SIG i.e. persistent refusal to leave edit summaries even when asked is likely to be seen as disruptive which is definitely how edit summaries are treated.

Ultimately what it comes down to as I hinted earlier is if a lot of people are asking you to do something and willing to give good reasons if you ask, you'd better either do so or have good reasons not to do so. As I also said, arguing that you aren't doing it because it isn't required is normally a bad sign.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have never notified any user of any deletion discussion that I have ever initiated. If someone is interested enough in an article or an image or what have you, well, that is why we have watch lists. No one owns articles, thus there is no special status bestowed upon creators or primary contributors. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally do notify users, but I could see it as absolutely pointless if there's no chance the article is going to be improved (except in cases of db-vand, in which case the user needs to be warned). Not all new users understand what a watchlist is or how to use it. I could cite WP:CIR for that (and agree with it in many cases), but I could also cite WP:BITE in turn. I've also found that when there's notification, the page author usually goes to the nominator with their questions, complaints, or personal attacks instead of the deleting admin (for better or worse) so there's a workload distribution consideration. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same as Ian.thomson about new users and watchlists. Newly created articles, in particular, can sometimes be improved or userfied rather than deleted. Not many editors will have a new article on their watchlists, and if the most interested editor isn't notified, this will only happen if one of the regular Csd and Afd watchers/participants happen to be interested. On the other hand, some articles, particularly promotional ones, have been dropped off by single-purpose editors who haven't edited since, and there may be little point in notifying them. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said above, by itself, not notifying isn't strong enough to sanction because policy doesn't demand it. Combined with other actions, it can demonstrate disruptive editing, obviously, but there it would be a symptom of a larger offense. The policy is vague for a reason, to allow us to look at each situation. ie: WP:BURO One of the problems with forcing notification (other than sometimes it makes no sense) is that for IPs to notify, they must do so manually, as TW doesn't work for IPs. In a perfect world, it would be great if everyone notified, but policy isn't likely to change, and I don't see anyone getting blocked for failure to notify if that is their only "crime". In fact, I would oppose a block based solely on not notifying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But the obvious question is why you believe policy has to explicitly require something to allow some sort of community imposed sanction even if the editor refuses to abide by multiple requests from the community. As I pointed out above, there are plenty of cases e.g. signing posts or edit summary where policy doesn't demand people do something all the time, and in the past policy and guidelines didn't even explicitly mention the possibility of sanction, yet it existed nevertheless precisely because of WP:NOTBURO and similar requirements. While additional disruption may make sanction more likely, it's never a requirement if existing action is sufficiently disruptive.

Also, I think most people agree with you that we should be looking at each situation and there may be a reason for the policy to be worded as it is. I admit I haven't looked that closely at the precise situation here. On the other hand, what I have seen suggests that the OP isn't really making any judgement call on whether it's worth notifying, it sounds like they're refusing to notify point blank because it isn't required.

Of course I could easily be wrong, and it would be great if the IP would clarify that I am and if I am I apologise to the IP wholeheartedly. But if I'm not, then I don't see how the situation helps. (The only exception may be if all the IP's cases are ones where notifying was probably pointless and unnecessary even if they didn't actually have any particular reason to think so.)

I should mention that I don't think the slight additional work for notification is particularly relevant. I don't do many deletions but I nearly always notify and don't use Twinkle or any other such tools. The added time it takes to notify compared to the deletion in the first place isn't that much (unlike say notifying when you revert vandalism). Further while it's the IPs right to edit without registering, they also have to accept the limitations and added requirements thereof and can't resonably expect to ignore community norms because of them.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should sanction the IP, or anyone, for persistently refusing to notify. Rather what I am saying is we should be looking at whether such refusal is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action instead of worrying about whether it's required by policy.

BTW as I said above I don't see any reason to talk about a block. The most logical course of action since we only have a problem in one particular area is to topic ban the IP from speedy deletions (or any deletions) if they persistently refuse to notify without a good reason. Of course as with all topic bans, it will need to be enforced by a block if the IP doesn't abide by it, but hopefully it would never come to that.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to how you read policy, and how important you view notifications. Another admin may feel differently, but I don't ever see me blocking someone for the singular problem of not notifying editors. You can't compare this to refusing to sign posts, which affects ever viewer of that discussion and frankly, isn't done unless it is combined with other intentionally disruptive behavior. Not notifying CSDs is rude, but it isn't strictly against policy, and if a local discussion !votes to block someone for something that is not against policy, I would of course protest as that is against the larger consensus here. You educate, you encourage, you can even bitch and moan, but you don't sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the editor to comment here before tagging any more articles for deletion, as I think it's necessary that we hear his or her perspective before resolving this. Personally, I believe that notifying editors whose articles are nominated for deletion is important—with the exception of obviously frivolous, vandalistic, or harassing articles that the creator wouldn't reasonably expect to remain a part of Wikipedia. Editors whose pages are nominated for speedy are likely to be new editors; having an early attempt at article-writing speedied must be demoralizing enough, without the deletion occurring without even a notification or an opportunity to try to improve the article. I ask that the thread not be closed until we've heard from the IP editor, or at least given him or her a chance to respond to my request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting silly. They've already stated that they're not doing it because it isn't required. And they're right, it isn't. If you find that an affront to all that is good in the world, then lobby to get it changed. Demanding an IP (who,again, has broken no rule) come here and re-state their already stated position so you can make them dance for you is getting appallingly close to abuse of power on your part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP is presumably unaware of the number of people concerned by his or her approach to this issue. By being asked to post here, his or her attention will be drawn to that fact, and I would like to see if it has any effect, as opposed to "I won't do it because it's not required and you can't make me." And I don't understand your last comment; requesting that someone do something is not invoking any sort of "power" at all, much less abusing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly if it's such trouble for people to notify, why can't we have a bot do it? If a speedy sits around for more than 5 minutes with no notification (or deletion), give one. Or find a way to handle it through Echo if feasible. I think Wikipedia should be doing more, not less, to make our processes accessible to the unfamiliar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• That makes too much sense. And I'm sure Echo could also handle it. It tells us all about reverts, which may or may not be wise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Having a bot do it would effectively make it mandatory, when right now it's explicitly not mandatory (in the sense that it must always be done). I do take "should" to mean that it should usually be done depending on the circumstances (RFC 2119), i.e. that it can't be ignored at whim, but there is room for judgement and discretion. Basically along the lines of Nil Einne's post. Anyway it seems to me 69.181.253.230 is editing in an obnoxious way that a techno-fix such as a bot isn't going to help. So I have a dim view of the bot suggestion. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really. It just takes you out of the equation. That an editor can't be arsed to notify the other editor is one thing: I can live with that. That an editor thinks the other editor generally deserves no notification is something quite different, and an attitude that in my opinion cuts directly against our civility pillar. Now, if people want to opt out, as they do with auto-signing and the like, totally fine. Same deal with Echo notifications. But notification of these things is important: it's common that the "you were on notice and just kept editing" argument comes up here and at DRV when someone comes back a month later complaining that "their article" was deleted. As I say, there are valid circumstances when someone shouldn't receive a notice. 90+% of CSDs do not fit those circumstances. At any rate, before any such change is undertaken, I think it would be nice if someone could run some statistics... checking for just how many CSDs in a given period don't result in notices, and perhaps other factors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Mendaliv: I love that idea... so much, that I've formally proposed it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• We have to remember that there are always 2 elements at play: policy instruments and community norms. The relavent policy or guideline may suggest that notification is optional, but if community norms suggest that notification is in most cases a requirement, then the community element trumps policy/guidelines. Take for example when some elements the signature guidelines were treated as de facto policy when the violations were significant enough to annoy the community. We appear to now be in that type of situation: the IP has been advised that community norms say to notify: if they continue to refuse to do so, then action can be taken the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I have to disagree with your statement in the general sense. Community norms are supposed to be documented in policy in order to be enforceable. To block someone solely based on a claim of "community norms" is opening a huge door, ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Dennis, WADR to the spririt of fairness in which you wrote that, it's really supposed to be the other way around--policy pages are supposed to document existing practice that in turn develops through consensus discussions. So in principle we shouldn't even be allowed to write a policy saying "people who do X get blocked" until there have been multiple occurences of people doing X and getting blocked by consensus (under some umbrella principle like disruptive editing), with enough points in common that we can abstract from them. Usually in the course of such discussions the offender has plenty of opportunity to say "I thought X was fine, but I see it's not being accepted, so I'll stop" and not get blocked. That is enough to avoid most of the abuses you're worried about. We have a much worse problem of abusive blocks in the current over-codified, wikilawyered, and easily gamed bureaucracy than we did under the "use common sense" system. Re the bot proposal: there are cases such as spam and attack pages where notifying the person is probably counterproductive. It's not a matter of being too lazy. Plus we already have too many bots crowding out the humans. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Sometimes we need to make a policy decision because we have differing views as to what the policy should be, that's how we eventually hammered out the BLPprod process. It seems clear to me that we have a lot of editors in this discussion who would agree that the norm should be to inform, though as I said earlier "there are some exception one should make". But we have at least one editor above who sees little point in informing editors. It may be that if we went to a full RFC that we'd find that there was more support for the status quo than we have here. It might also be that there would be consensus for changing the rules but no consensus as to the change that we should make. I would assume that the exceptions where there was no point informing people would include: People who have now been banned, have a retirement flag up, have been indef blocked for creating this sort of article and a talkpage already strewn with deletion messages, and Author requested deletions. In my view this is a judgment issue, and could be accommodated by wording such as "When tagging pages for speedy deletion don't forget to inform the person who created the page (though use your judgement as there are some circumstances where doing so is inappropriate)." But if we have consensus that tagging newbie created articles for deletion without informing them is a form of Newbie biting, then we should change the policy to deprecate that for the future. As for the idea that policy change should follow the norm, that's fine for consensus based decisions such as at AFD; if we can show that whenever a particular scenario comes to AFD the consensus is always to delete then it probably makes sense to add that scenario to the CSD criteria. But here we have a situation where a few editors, and I have encountered several over the years, believe that not informing editors is a valid position within policy because "should is not must". I don't think that we should change that situation by telling such editors that should means usually and they are being disruptive, I think we should change that situation by getting consensus for a change to policy. ϢereSpielChequers 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I support having a bot do this, and taking the responsibility out of the hands of the nominators entirely. A nominator can still leave a message if they want to provide some expanded reasoning to the original author. bd2412 T 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Community norma, like all policies and guides, can be established by informal as well as informal consensus. That one regular editor disagrees is not proof that the norm doesn't exist; it's on the contrary good evidence that the particular editor is not following the norms of the rest of the community, and a very strong argument that the editor should change their practices. That goes as much for the established editor who commented that they never notify as for the ip editor under discussion here. I consider that the practice falls under the general policy of encouraging new editors, a policy so basic that it's been assumed without being written, as it is obvious that without this, the encyclopedia cannot survive. It also falls under the explicit Deletion policy that deletion is the last resort, which implies that every article be given a chance for improvement.
• We could establish this as a rule without making a bot: we could require the use of Huggle in making deletions , and remove the option to not notify the editor, except when the reason is vandalism. We could also use a bot, and the bot has the advantage that we could in the future expand the notifications to not just the creator but the most recent substantial editor (or otherwise, as experience will show us.) Personally, I'd rather do one or another than try to penalize established editors for not following unwritten but well understood policy, and the reason is that it's a better environment not to challenge each other on such a direct basis if it can be avoided. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, I remember a visiting a co-worker in another office. He showed me a new office policy about how periodicals should be circulated. He saw my puzzlement that a senior partner would spend so much time crafting a policy. Were there really that many employees who didn't know how to forward a magazine? He brought me down to one office, which was stacked high with unforwarded magazines. The point being that the senior person in charge didn't have the guts to tell the one offending employee what to do, and spent far too much time crafting an office-wide policy, just to deal with one person (who, ironically, was ignoring the policy).

I don't want to make it mandatory, because I can think of exceptions. However, if someone refuses to do the polite thing, simply because it isn't mandatory, perhaps we should pass a narrow rule - 69.181.253.230 is required to notify, unless they include a edit summary with a reason for not doing the notification. (We aren't bound by the US Constitution, so it is OK that this might be viewed as a Bill of attainder.) Far too much valuable time has been spent on this, I appreciate that the IP is mostly contributing in a positive way, but time to cut the Gordian Knot.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rich Farmbrough and Nil Einne that notification should be mandatory, or that it simply be done by bot. The "exceptions" make zero sense. We do not have such limited bandwidth or server space that it is bad to add yet another notice to the talk age of a banned or retired editor. On the other hand, considerable harm is done to the retention of new editors when their first article is stealthily and sneakily deleted without any notice, taking away their ability to explain on the article's talk page that sources exist to support notability. Ignoring something you "should" do, when you have been repeatedly asked to comply, can amount to disruptive editing and can lead to being blocked from editing, as happened with an editor who refused to properly sign his posts. One or two regular editors not liking something is not always an adequate bar against it being the consensus. Edison (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it isn't mandatory. It doesn't take much extra time to notify the user, and it at least allows for that user to contest the speedy deletion. So pretty much what some of the users above have said. Dustin (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

One reason for not making it mandatory—one new editors misunderstood our rules about copyright and generated dozens of articles with problems. Some editors were simply adding a full template for every one, but I and another editor agreed we should leave one notice, followed by a post with a simple list of all other examples. The mandatory rule would have left the editor with a sea of notices, not a welcome sight.

I'll grant that if this is the only exception, it may not be worth considering, and maybe it should be mandatory, but the question has come up before, and rejected, so I am guessing there are other legitimate exceptions.

I will repeat, it seems like a poor use of resources to ask a community to make something mandatory to deal with a single user. Better to address the single editor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It definitely isn't just a single user. I have encountered at least a couple of others who do this including one whose argument is "there should be a bot that does that". As for exemptions, user blanked G7s seem an obvious one to me, and whilst I have some sympathy with the argument that it shouldn't bother us if a banned user gets deluged with lots of these messages, it certainly bothers me if it happened to a retired user. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a multi-day pattern of disruptive editing by Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) , specifically on articles and categories related to Misogyny/Misandry:

Today, Obiwankenobi edited the category for “violence against men”, to make it so it’s no longer a subcategory of “Misandry” [[4]] He did this while involved in a debate on the original research noticeboard about that very category in question. The debate specifically involves this category’s relation to the misandry category, so it seems inappropriate to alter the category during the course of the debate. He also seems to be making a lot of controversial edits on many different categories related to misogyny/misandry, I'm not familiar enough to comment on all the other changes, but I think someone knowledgeable about categories maybe should look into the multiple category changes currently being made by this editor.

Additionally, this is all occurring after an informal admin effort to help this user avoid a topic ban for disruptive editing on another article related to misogyny/misandry, YesAllWomen. On this article, Obiwankenobi bludgeoned the article talk page and closed an RfC he was involved in. Full details can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#YesAllWomen, but in the end, Obiwankenobi agreed to edit something unrelated for a week or so, to avoid formal action, but this he hasn’t occurred, so it seems formal action may be needed. to avoid issue being brought to ANI. At the very least I think there needs to be more eyes on all the category changes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify where formal action was threatened anywhere? The way you've worded it is that Obi agreed to a week to avoid formal action, but when I read the thread, it appears Obi agreed to a week in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize there's a lot to wade through in the above linked discussion, but here are a couple of difs to relevant comments:

[[5]],[[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will leave this in TParis's capable hands, but you are both correct. He agreed to back away, thus avoiding it being taken to ANI, where action was possible. I think you are just wording it differently. ie: "formal action" == "taken to ANI", rather than it meaning any particular sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm actually heading off to the gym. Sorry, I just wanted clarification on this point. I hate to see good deeds misconstrued as admission of guilt.--v/r - TP 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it was an offer of a good dead after realizing he had probably pushed it a bit far in the discussion, but a good dead is only a good dead if you follow through. Bob doesn't seem to be asking for a block here, he is asking for oversight. I've done what I can, but my methods of come up short, and I'm just not fully well right now. It needs an another experienced, calm mediator to review and assist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hate how the categories are used here, so no comment there. I see nothing to make me think Obi's agreement was to avoid any sort of sanction. Arkon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, it appears that one of the changes put Domestic violence and pregnancy in the "violence against men" category. [[7]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Only indirectly as a grandparent. In the same way, adding Category:Rape as a subcategory of Category:Violence against women means Male rape now has a grandparent of Category:Violence against women. There are many such inconsistencies, please don't blame them on me! This is due to the nature of this part of the category tree - we have gendered parents with ungendered children like Category:Rape or Category:Domestic violence - so as a result some of the articles in the ungendered categories don't really fit in the gendered grandparent categories. This isn't my doing, this has been this way for a while as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• comment Bobo is correct that I went too far in a recent debate. I let my emotions get the better of me, but I've apologized, and I apologize again to Bobo and Tara for the disruption there. and I have already stepped away from that particular discussion on the advice of Dennis. As for the other edits, I do a lot of category editing and when categories are mentioned I take a look and make changes if I think they are warranted. The discussion Bobo refers to was not about the proper parent categories of Category:Violence against men but rather whether a particular article should be categorized in a particular category, i.e. Category:Violence against men in North America. I made the change to make Misandry->Violence against men a see also link instead of a parent/child relationship, since violence against men is not always driven by misandry, but often by other motives, such as religious hatred or political violence, terrorism, war, etc (see Srebrenica massacre for a classic example of violence against men that was nonetheless not driven by misandry but rather by ethnoreligious hatred). That said, in the interests of good will I am self-reverting those changes and will engage on the relevant talk pages to seek further consensus. It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. I welcome any other suggestions you all have here on how to de-escalate this situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point on Srebrenica. Given the historical rareness of Amazons in military ranks, we might as well put Category:Battles into Violence against men, but that doesn't mean that battles should be considered misandry. I quote a relevant passage from Commons:COM:OVERCAT, which is simpler than anything I see here on en:wp —

Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

Let the misandry category be for articles about subjects such as militant feminism. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted those changes now, but I am starting a discussion at WikiProject gender studies to cover this and the misogyny category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. You shouldn't expect anyone to have unlimited patience with you. Bobo and I had both addressed your tendentious editing on your talk page previously and were rebuffed. When every objection to your behavior is met with 'it's water under the bridge' and 'let's move forward' rather than any acknowledgement that you could have handled the matter better, and when the behavior itself keeps recurring, you have to expect that eventually someone is going to turn to a dispute resolution venue of some sort. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Let me make an observation: Here just as on my talk page, I think everyone is acting in good faith. Some nerves are a bit raw but no one is asking for sanctions, no one is getting rude. Both sides of the original dispute are frustrated, but that is just part of editing in disputed areas. It happens. We seem to have an agreement by Obi and good faith actions on his part. Perhaps we should just close and walk away and let time heal old wounds. I don't see any "bad guys" here, and I don't want this to get dragged out to a point that we create one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am acting with good faith and I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions. I just think you should be aware that the calm reasonable response that Obiwankenobi has been giving in front of you and other admins, who have the power to impose sanctions, is in contrast to the continued behavior and the repeated rebuffing of fellow editor's concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I really think that a less biased editor should be the one who does things like unlink the category Violence against women from Misogyny or Violence against men from Misandry. The former is a long standing category which covers dozens of articles. More importantly, there are a number of instances where an article would have been in both Misogyny and Violence against women and that it now would not be. The article for Violence against women describes it as "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." However, Obiwankenobi seems to be convinced that these kinds of violence do not presuppose the victim's gender as a motive. I believe this is to eventually move towards including things such as acts of war as gendered violence and completely restructure the way that both categories are used. Considering this editors contentious stance concerning feminism, I think it is very possible that these efforts are an attempt to "move the goalposts" as it were concerning categories that focus on both men's and women's issues --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. If you'd like the participate in the discussion on this topic, I started it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. That said, I would be careful about relying upon our wikipedia article, I'd focus on the sources themselves instead, which I provided an example of in the discussion I just linked, which gives about 6 or 7 different reasons for rape in warfare for example. the way we have used these categories in the past is for violence where the victim was selected for violence based on their gender - not where the gender of the victims MOTIVATED the violence - the causes of violence are complex, but they sometimes manifest themselves in particular people being selected for violence based on their gender. For example, sexual trafficking of women is not motivated by hatred of women, but by profit. Sometimes both happen at once, but not always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are editing directly against the basic ways that a term is described on website, then it shows we, as a community, have some significant problems with our understanding of said terms --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read this, which gives about 20 pages of different theories as to the causes and motives of violence against women. Very few of them are "Because they are women". It suggests to me we should update the lede of our article, actually. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but without specific guidelines concerning how to use a category, surely we should use how the topic is described on website? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Arkon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, there hasn't really been any contribution by admins and the discussion seems to be unresolved. I'm certainly still very unhappy about how disruptive Obi's editing has been the past few days --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be hastily closed either. It appears the category referred to above “violence against men”, has been nominated for deletion: (here) and the arguments for deletion coming from multiple editors relate largely to Obiwankenobi’s use of this category. I’m not sure the answer, but if admins could help facilitate the use of this category by Obiwankenobi, it might go a long way in saving a category from deletion, which has the potential to be useful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A category like that sounds like a novelty item, like the proverbial "man bites dog" (or more recently, soccer player). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage people to take a look at the sources I provided here which provide some quotes and context for just a small part of the literature around gender-based violence against men (I didn't provide sources around Male rape outside of war, Domestic violence against men, Prison rape, and other forms of gender-based violence against men, I just focused on things like gender-selective killing of civilian males in conflict and sexual violence during conflict enacted against males.) I realize this is a sensitive topic, and many people may not have been exposed to this literature (and some express disbelief that violence against men is a real thing!); and it's certainly a topic much less covered than violence against women, but the topic of gender-based violence against men is a real field of study and I think it's quite useful as a category. Like all relatively new categories, it is still undeveloped and needs help to grow and refine inclusion criteria. Your help and input would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This story is every bit as qualified for a "Violence against men" category as anything you've argued for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

−

• Comment: This guy is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a classic Men's Rights Activist POV-pusher. His disruption is seen across the website on articles related to the topic of "Violence against Men" which is an advocacy position of the MRAs. He denies being involved in such, but in his contributions it is easy to see that his actions are never helpful. At all. jps (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to be letting up -- This is what some might call a snow job. Why are we tolerating this kind of behavior? jps (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a new concept for me at wikipedia - an editor who on talk pages offers reliable source evidence on why a category is relevant is attacked for doing that. How about you address the sources and content rather than the editor. If you believe the material is irrelevant, then you should make that case. My reading of the material indicates that indeed there are instances where men are subjected to violence because there are men. If you are arguing otherwise, I'd like to understand why?Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

jps: the only way to get him off gender issues would be a detailed case before ArbCom - "the community" doesn't have the attention span, and there are too many ignorant, sexist doofuses here to ever get community consensus behind a ban for tendentious sexism, or relentless realisation of the MRM agenda. Something like the Noleander case might do it. Does Obiwankenobi misrepresent sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that he is turning "gender-based violence" into "violence against men" as means to claim victimhood where there isn't any evidence that the gender itself is victimized. This is a rather ugly tactic that the MRM has been using as of late, similar to other groups who find themselves with only polemical and ideological support, they twist sources that are completely not about MRA into such. That's basically what's going on here. jps (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

jps I've only been tracking the debates around the 2014 Isla Vista killings‎‎ where some editors have objected to adding the category to that page. In my view, there's enough support in reliable sources for including those attacks in Violence Against Men cat. I'm curious to whether or not you'd agree. Is it really a stretch?Mattnad (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a stretch. The only reason that this is being argued over is because it was pointed out early on in social media that the perpetrator of the shooting spree was a raging misogynist. No, he was not a misandrist. He was a misogynist. And he was directing his hatred towards women as a class. That his violent actions ended up being acted out against men is quite beside the point, but the people who picked up on this are all MRAs with their hatred of the #yesallwomen cri de guerre inspiring action against misogyny. I don't think either categorical violence label really needs to be on that page, but the violence against men category is clearly just being included out of political tit-for-tat. There is no other reason. jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

JPS do you have any sources that support your assertion that men are not subject to gender-based violence? Any sources, at all? I've provided about 30-40 that explicitly discuss various forms of violence against men as gender-based violence or sexual violence or 'sexual and gender-based violence'. Do you have sources or are these just your personal opinions? Preferably high quality sources like [8] which studied sexual and gender based violence against men and boys in the congo?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already pointed out on my talkpage that what is actually missing is a single source which indicates that men are subject to violence against them solely as a gender. You didn't respond. The study you cite is not looking at targeting men as men, but rather targeting men of the larger groups that are being targeted. But you cynically and MRA-lly use that and other studies which study gender segregation in massacres as evidence for a categorical claim which is not based in sources but only in the misogynistic MRM politics you pretend not to care about but seem to enjoy citing (e.g. Adam_Jones_(Canadian_scholar)). jps (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying violence against men isn't studied as a topic? Or are you saying you don't think it's a valid /real topic unless such violence is targeted at every man on the planet? Do you have any sources which take this point of view? It sounds a lot like a personal opinion. Me, I go by sources. If a source says "X is gender-based violence against men", I tend to trust it esp if said source is cited by lots of other reliable sources, which is the case with Jones work. What sources are you relying upon? Your contributions have been remarkably source-free. If you think that (violence against (gender)) is not valid unless the whole gender is targeted, then you would be in disagreement with a vast literature on violence against women (and the growing literature on violence against men), which studies the intersection of gendered and sexual violence with relations of power, ethnicity, religion, social structure and so on. You would be hard pressed to find many examples of "I hate all women on the planet" in the VAW category - instead you find such gender-based violence, even against women, intersects with ethnicity or other structures. and by the way, I can cite that too, but will you read it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would be a great idea. Certainly calling people who disagree with you sexist worked out so well last time. Arkon (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban for Obiwankenobi on articles relating to gender discrimination, misogyny and misandry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oh come on guys, this is easy. Support topic ban. WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. If we topic ban everyone who's willing to work on this topic, then what? I realize that it's a sensitive subject area, but there are also a bunch of overly sensitive people working on it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia needs to crack down on POV pushers who put knowledgable, conscientious editors through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. That hemorrhages our best people like nothing else. Obiwankenobi, as concisely as possible, please state your claims and provide links to the reliable sources that support them.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we do need to crack down on POV pushers, but Obiwankenobi is not one of those POV pushers. If anything he is the one being put through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. It is not Obi's responsibility to come here and defend himself unless you first put forth a decent case against him. The original ANI filing did not contain much in the way of diff's to claim Obi was disruptive. And this topic ban proposal contains absolutely nothing other than one editor's unsupported assertions as to his behavior. As such I Strongly Oppose actions against him, and think maybe we should be taking a look at cracking down on some actual POV pushers. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted evidence that Nikola Tesla and not Galileo Ferraris invented the first practical AC induction motor, I could give you five books printed by some of the English speaking world's most reputable academic publishers in less then 10 minutes. Common Obi. Now's your chance to shine.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atlantictire. If you're talking about violence against men, I've added a bunch of sources here that discuss the topic of gender-based violence against men You may also be interested in reading this piece which was released last month, entitled "Into the Mainstream: Addressing sexual violence against men and boys in conflict" and highlights the specific issues faced by men who have been victimized by such violence. There is also a recently started campaign with a video here worth watching that covers the double standard of societal reactions to violence against men vs violence against women, which we also see playing out in some of the reactions to these categories. Note that none of these materials come from MRA, they come from respected NGOs, scholars, international organizations, and the like. I think at some point it would be worth developing a decent article on this topic, the old articles which did exist were not good. I realize this is a contentious topic area and I also accept that I have gone too far in certain conversations, and I'm sorry for that, sometimes I let emotions get the better of me, and I have backed away from several discussions already in this regard. I don't think it's POV pushing however to populate a category of violence against men, any moreso than it would be POV pushing to populate the category of violence against women (for example, I created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it with several instances. I know there are a few items that have been disputed that have been added to these categories, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss those (not here),and will abide by consensus. If there are other corrective actions you'd suggest in lieu of a topic ban I'm also willing to consider those.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, you can dispense with the overwrought niceties with me. I consider WP:NPOV far more important than spectacular displays of civility. Let's keep it real.

So that's it? All you've got for me is one paper? That does not a topic make. If a bunch of papers are stitched together via a premise that isn't explicitly advanced by any reliable sources, that's WP:SYNTH.

Second, your paper is in no way arguing that men and boys are targeted because they are men and boys. Do you understand? There are places that are extremely violent where everyone is targeted, and then there's the specific targeting of women and girls because they are women and girls. Your paper even says that even in these places where many men and boys are victimized, victimization of women is still more prevalent. You need to find something that specifically says boys and men are targeted as opposed to women and girls because they are men and boys. Otherwise, you're superimposing an WP:OR reading on your sources and wasting everyone's precious time and driving them insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take this to another board? Maybe we could discuss the category at WikiProject gender studies? Or my talk page, if you wish. Briefly, I didn't provide one paper, if you click the link above, I have provided 11. And that is just on the topic of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict situations. A lot more could be provided around domestic violence, and male rape. At least one of the papers I've found explicitly states "A relatively recent term, coined to indicate mass killing that targets a specific sex, is gendercide. The term denotes sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men." Many of the other sources call these forms of violence "gender-based violence", which is the stated scope of the category. I agree there is non-gender based violence that affects men and women in conflict, such as bombs going off in market-places or security forces fighting one another, I wouldn't call any of those gender-based violence. re: Synth, remember that we're discussing a category, for which SYNTH doesn't apply. If at some point an article is developed, then you'd have a point re: synth, but some of the sources do explicitly link sexual violence against men WITH sex-selective massacres of men (e.g. gendercide/androcide), and with forced conscription and human trafficking for labor (or, sometimes, sex trafficking). I concur that this topic is not at all covered to the extent VAW is, but it a topic and is differentiated from non-gender-based violence that happens to affect men, such as soldiers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have two papers, which still does not a topic make. One on extremely violent places saying men are targeted as well as women, although women are still targeted more frequently. The other which bizarrely calls men killing men of other ethnicities "gendercide." I believe the non-WP:FRINGE term for that is genocide.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided 11 papers in the link, actually, did you look? As for men being targeted because they are men, Jones' work on gendercide may be useful here, he studied the history of sex-selective massacres, one of the most famous recent examples being Srebrenica massacre, where the men and boys were separated from the women and executed. Being selected for death because you are a man is the very definition of violence because they are men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is not helpful here because Jones is the author of a POV website and not a reliable source. I wouldn't care if the topic were gender discrimination or daffodil varieties. This is NOT about Obi being a sexist pig or something. If you had been doing this to me for weeks, I'd be ready to explode as well. TParis and other admins, this is exactly the kind of endless game that needs to stop if we want to keep people who are knowledgable and serious about content.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, the Journal of Genocide research is not a reliable source? Or... While there has been some academic dispute about Jone's approach, that is no reason to throw out his ideas entirely, esp since they have been taken up by others. Anyway, if you want to discuss the VAM category further please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and start a section there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is a WP:FRINGE academic supporting the same WP:ADVOCACY that you are supporting. jps (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Fringe" argument is starting to take on the boy who cried wolf characteristics. Fringe has deviated on this project from a word meaning deviating from accepted science to meaning anything we disagree with. Biased sources are not banned per Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. They should receive appropriate weight for the level they are accepted in academics. If they are poorly received in academics, then we attribute to the source and we don't use Wikipedia voice (and give it less prominence in prose). But it isn't outright banned.--v/r - TP 21:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Nothing has been presented to warrant such a thing. Arkon (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or 1RR restriction This editor is aggressive in both promoting fringe topics concerning men's rights and framing radical and separatist feminism as misandrist. It would really be best if these topic areas were framed by people editing from WP:NPOV and not used to push bias. Furthermore, this user badgers anyone who disagrees with his stance on talk pages with an energy that prevents two-sided debates. These bad edit habits are especially valid in his editing in the Violence against men, Violence against women and Misandry categories where he defines consensus as "whatever I like" and hounds editors who disagree with him on their user talk pages. There is definite WP:OWN on these categories and I don't think you could find a single article in Violence against men that has not been added and defended by him and him alone --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oh look, more accusations without diffs! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- having unpopular opinions is not a bannable offence. Reyk _YO! 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have unpopular opinions. What isn't fine is wasting talk page space and hours and hours of editors' time with endless wordgames and violation after violation of WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICK in service of a WP:FRINGE POV. WP:PUSH is Wikipedia's deadliest habit, and it's very, very, very civil.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The person is here as a classic POV-pusher for the MRA. His attempt to WP:OWN these types of articles is an extreme and utter distraction. He needs to be removed as unsuited. jps (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Obiwankenobi is one of the better editors here and a number of people here view him as possible admin material. He is far braver than most to take on such an important yet divisive topic and the amount of personal attacks, false accusations and intimidation he receives for doing so is a disgrace and needs to stop (see this discussion for some examples [9]). The fact that Obi has remained calm and courteous throughout this experience is to his credit. As for issues such as POV pushing and breaches of NPOV etc, well those problems apply infinitely more to the editing patterns of one or two of the people who'd like to see a ban happen and I hope such it boomerangs back against them. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
• Comment - 'I'm not ready to vote yet, and will need to think about it more, but Obiwankenobi I'm still concerned because you haven't acknowledged that you've gone too far in your actions. Above, you acknowledge going too far in conversation, but honestly, it’s beyond that. It concerns edit warring “violence against men” category into articles where it doesn't seem to belong [[10]], [[11]],[[12]], and closing RfC you were involved in [13], and aggressive reverting of Kevin Gorman when he was merely trying to clean up that mess you made when your category changes put the article domestic violence and pregnancy into the “violence against men” category. IMO, what is needed to help end the disruption is an understanding on your part that your repeated actions have caused disruption, not just passionate conversation on the issue. Additionally, I think an alternative to a topic ban for Obiwankenobi might be imposing a 1RR restriction for this user in this topic area. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(fixed ec) Hi Bobo, I have indeed acknowledged going too far, and acknowledge same in terms of editing content as well as on talk page discussions, I was wrong to put that RFC on hold, although I did so with the best of intentions, but I also saw the error of my ways and reverted and apologized and added my neutral framing instead. As for Kevin Gorman's issue, I've discussed this with him already, the basic problem is having a non-gendered category such as Category:Domestic violence that is in a gendered parent like Category:Violence against women. As a result of this, Domestic violence against men is now a subset of Category:Violence against women which is the grandparent; in the same way, Male rape is in Category:Rape which is in Category:Violence against women, thus the inconsistency that so disturbed Kevin actually cuts both ways, it's inherent in the structure and isn't a problem per se with Violence against men, the same problems happen with the VAW category. I've proposed a discussion on the inclusion criteria and on the structuring of both the VAW and VAM categories, but here is not the place to have that discussion, as soon as things calm down I'd be happy to engage and seek consensus on the best structure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a 1RR restriction within this topic area would be a great solution to this and probably encourage talk page discussions between editors here. Obi quite often passes 3RR when trying to implement 'Violence against men' to articles and this would help keep the editors patterns in line --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is that there are no reliable sources to support the POV. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. When editors just keep going, playing endless word games, and refuse to surrender to reliable sources while remaining civil, they eventually force everyone into ArbCom. This is deadly for editor retention.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't engaged with the sources I provided. Can you find any sources whatsoever to support your point of view, e.g. that men are not subject to gender-based violence? I'm waiting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This looks like a content dispute, not essentially a behavioral one. BMK (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Under no circumstance - This is a ridiculous amount of overkill and doesn't fit the situation in any way. There is a content dispute, a little bludgeoning went on, it never got nasty, just frustrating. There is no way I could possibly oppose this any stronger than I do. I find the very idea offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I am familiar with Obiwankenobi's editing pattern and I believe that his is an obvious case of WP:POV pushing in order to right great wrongs. I had lengthy discussions with the editor in three articles where his stated objective was to prove that "gender-based discrimination exists for men". A few editors, myself included, explained that this is not what the articles where about and that we needed to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the subjects (some examples from one discussion about the men's rights movement: [14][15][16][17]), but Obi kept bringing these sources about discrimination against men. I was surprised that an experienced editor didn't seem to understand our core content policies like WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. Since then he has been doing those weird things to our category system, adding his Category:Violence against men and other categories to all kinds of articles (e.g., he says that the 2014 Isla Vista killings is an example of violence against men). This isn't about having unpopular opinions. It's about wanting to fight what he construes as discrimination against men and using Wikipedia as a means, see WP:Advocacy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that your Diffs are to what -other- editors have said, not what Obi has said. Arkon (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic, you may disagree on the Isla Vista killings, but about 8 other editors by my count support that categorization, so if I'm guilty of thought-crime on this matter, so are they. Those other diffs are, I think, about a single word "perceived"... anyway, we wikipedians argue over all sorts of things, but that argument was over a single word.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

THOUGHT-CRIME? Good lord, you're a mean drunk. (joke)--Atlantictire (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go all Nineteen Eighty-Four on me rhetorically. Yes, it may very well be that there are other editors (like this one) who do not understand WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. See Argumentum ad populum. You claim that Rodger killed men because they were men. That's obviously not the case and unsupported by your three sources. It's one of many examples of your editing pattern where you combine published material to advance your POV. I'll let you have the last word now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooo, can I have the last word instead? It's amazing how much that sounds like a content dispute, well no, it's exactly just that. That totally justifies attempting to topic ban someone who disagrees with you, right? (Also I can't help but love your "Obviously" statement, that doesn't sound entrenched and at odds with multiple sources at all.) Arkon (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See this is where you're wrong. I don't give a damn about this topic. What I care about is allowing an editor to drag everyone through this Reddithole of endless bs-ing long after his sources and arguments have been discredited. We do have policies to stop this and nobody uses them. It's a massive drag.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Obi wan is one of our most thorough and neutral editors and I have the highest respect for him. His participation in the Chelsea Manning naming dispute was one of the only sane voice no matter the side. He was instrumental in developing the RFC that eventually got the article moved and has shown similar thoroughness in other disputes like the Hillary Rodham Clinton naming dispute. He has shown sensetivity in a very sensetive environment. Obi wan consistently works toward productive results and at times has to drag other editors by the collar to get there. When I see editors arguing with Obi on any topic, my first concern is "What POV are they pushing that he is trying to balance neutrally?"--v/r - TP 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, I wasn't party to the Chelsea Manning dispute, and have only read about it off Wikipedia but according to the press coverage there were the editors who were dead wrong, the editors who were correct, and the Arbcomers who seemed to think there was a middle ground. Also, it's not hard to know if something is FRINGE. It's got shoddy statistics, or shoddy research design, or cherry picked facts and omits relevant facts that would neutralize the POV. It uses research to support a hypothesis the research was never designed to investigate. I know zero about "men's rights" but that Jones website Obi linked to had nothing going on in terms of research that substantiated Jones' POV.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) What does your response to me have to do with Obiwan? 2) Have you read WP:ANI Advice and Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process?--v/r - TP 22:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You got me. I'm not the world's greatest wikilawyer. I wandered out of my happy realm of guitar effects onto the the AfD board one day, and have been confounded ever sense by the tremendous tolerance for endless circular discussion long after sources and arguments have been discredited. That is exactly what your fine friend Obi does..--Atlantictire (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shakehandsman and Reyk, Obiwankenobi is a good editor, I admit this out of my editing area but, I've never remember this editor as being pushy or any ownership issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagreed with Obi-Wan Kenobi lots of times in the past, but this dispute doesn't seem to warrant a topic ban, even if I am not sure of some of his stances. Perhaps Obi needs to learn to compromise a bit more, but this seems just a content dispute. If any contentious point remains unresolved, just go through RFCs.--cyclopia^speak! 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obi's a great editor and let's be honest we need more like him here, As above this seems more like a content dispute and those involved should probably take it the relevant venues or talkpage. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is politics at work. There are some very motivated editors who take issue with ANY mention that men can be targeted for violence because of their gender. I've only intersected with Obi Wan on the 2014 Isla Vista killings, but I don't see disruptive editing on Obi Wan's part there. It's the opposite, among those who take an extremist view that men were not specifically targeted, not withstanding sources, including Psychology Today that say otherwise:

• "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women.,
• "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women",
• ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. I don't think he's there yet. But he's definitely working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tom and Dennis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Baseball Bugs. While I do think that Obi-Wan is arguing from the FRINGE, I haven't found his editing to be especially disruptive (yet). Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obi is a good editor. Caden ^cool 22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, currently. Depending on the path that Obi's editing takes in the future, I can imagine him eventually ending up with a topic ban in this area, but I don't think he's done anything severely disruptive enough to warrant one yet. I have not followed every single one of his edits, and could conceivably have my mind changed if someone presented a solid enough set of diffs, but haven't seen that set of diffs prevented yet. It's fairly obvious that he's editing from a particular POV, but he is also mostly staying inside the rules while doing so, and is generally pretty collegial. I think some of his patterns of reversions were silly with a couple bordering on obnoxious, but not enough to tban someone for. He certainly should not have removed the VAW cat from an article that explicitly talked about violence against women and children as he did here just because he didn't like the fact that I had taken out the violence against men cat (because the page makes no mention of violence against men in its current state,) but I still think that's not tban worthy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This in particular was probably the strangest VAM addition (Obis contribution begins about eleven comments in): [18]. It's when a person takes Valerie Solanas seriously that I start to question their understanding of gender studies --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Comment - I notice some oppose votes from people who admit to being unfamiliar with what’s been happening in the topic area lately, but are still opposing on basis that Obi has history of being a good editor. Actually, I can understand where they’re coming . While I’m relatively new here, I’ve crossed paths with Obi enough to find him a reasonable editor in past, so was surprised by what he’s been doing in the topic area of violence against men/violence against women. I’m having trouble voting on this because while I think something needs to be done, I think topic ban might be too extreme and something like 1RR restriction may actually be more reasonable. Also, I’m not sure the restriction should apply as broadly as written above. For example, gender discrimination seems broader than necessary, the disruption seems pretty much isolated to violence against men/violence against women from what I’ve seen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see this was closed while I was commenting on it, so I suppose deciding how to vote is no longer an issue. I would like to ask the closing admin what Obi "has been put on notice" means exactly. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks unlikely to pass, which is a terrible shame, as the nuance of what this user and a handful of like-minded others have been doing over the past year is difficult to grasp. This is a subtle agenda of marginalizing women's topics in the Wikipedia. It began last April, continued to the agonizing ordeal to get a woman's bio to be disambiguated to something other than an anachronistic "wife of... X" name (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown, links to 8 move discussions at the top, as well as the Move Reviews), to the equally agonizing discussions to preserve Hillary Rodham Clinton's full name as an article title (9 RMs at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, and again, the Move Review]], as well as their negative impact on articles from YesAllWomen to misandry. Why is there a Gender Gap in this project? Exhibit A, right here. Tarc (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I generally hate quoting diffs of my own comments, let alone after a section has been closed, but I think that my comment on my own talk page to Obi laid out parts of the issue significantly better than my comment here did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I rather think this diff, the cute edit summary, and this continuation of horsebeating after the section was closed is much more telling. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also like to post this dif which lays out Obi's stance concerning male rape and female rape, it may be useful for future ANIs [19] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• As exciting as all this is, maybe you all should consider starting an RfC before you visit ANI to ask admins to wave a baseball bat. Tarc, I'm sympathetic to your arguments, as you may know, and familiar with some of the cases you brought up. I just think that, at this time, an ANI-enforced measure is not the way to go. As for what "put on notice" means--I'm a panda, look it up. I think Obi knows what I means. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to detract from the perspicacity of the learned doctor, but I think "consensus is overwhelmingly against this proposal" would have been a more accurate summation of the discussion that "not even a weak consensus". While Drmies' statement is of course also accurate, the proposal was soundly rejected, in a manner that would make Hakeem Olajuwon envious. The closer's statement should reflect this. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, you know, YMMV. I might well agree with the spirit (or I wouldn't have closed this so quickly) and not cite the letter. But I think the most important thing to observe here is that ANI is here to solve problems and to point out to editors how they can avoid future trouble; I think Obi realizes that there is significant resistance to their means of pursuing whatever the goal is. I haven't heard from Obi, on or off wiki, but they're smart enough to see that even the very proposal is a serious indication of such resistance, and I hope, I assume, that they're going to act on that--or maybe already are. If an ANI thread can achieve a goal (and let's hope that this one will) without blocks and bans, then we're all better off. I think Dikembe Mutombo would rather see a dunk on the other end than a missed shot followed by a rebound and a fast break and the ensuing need for him to raise his arm and block. So, ANI rejected the proposal but wagged its finger. Thanks Joe, Drmies (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read some of his comments since, I seriously doubt it will change his editing habits at all --80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're an optimist too, huh? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.

Article: Oathkeeper

Involved Section(s): Oathkeeper#Writing

Issue(s): Edit-Warring, tendentious editing, and possibly something worse

Editor Being Reported: Darkfrog24

Background:

After almost a month and a half of mediation, RfC'ing and a virtual maze of walls o' text, a narrow consensus emerged with regards to the incorrect usage of the primary source of a book to note chapters used within an episode of the Game of Thrones tv series. Darkfrog24 (and, to a lesser extent, Diego Moya) insisted that a primary source could be used to extrapolate what chapters were used in the episode. A majority of others equally insisted that this constituted synthesis, and others still argued that, since reviews from secondary sources didn't bother mentioning the chapter-episode relationships with such precision, that doing so was trivial. After the RFC, matters seemed to calm down and the article was stable without the book reference.

Issue:

Darkfrog returned to the article and began re-adding the primary reference again, and continued to add it when removed several times. Darkfrog then lashed out at other editors (myself one of them) several times. She added three distinct, secondary sources. One of them, appears to be a user-created article(io9's Observation Deck) which contains information about the chapters from the book used within the television series, without being specific as to what chapter appeared in what article. There also appears to be some concern that Observation Deck contains user-created articles. Damned odd, but I could simply be misinterpreting

The second source, however, is what brought me here. In the first paragraph of the anonymous news article, the precise information Darkfrog24 sought to add appears. Fortuitous? I'd say yes, but then I started to note some inconsistencies, such as the fact that the source, PANow.com, allows for independently-written articles. The source wasn't written by a staff writer at the site (I confirmed this by contacting them to ask who wrote the article). Additionally, PANow is a user-driven site.

Concern:

Darkfrog has run into problems before here (1, 2) and at 3RR (3, 4). Despite this, I am not sure if I want to believe that Darkfrog24 would create a source within user-space sites to directly support her position in an article. That seems like overkill, but we all know that this has happened elsewhere, with other (former) contributors. Maybe its happening here.

Had it not been for the precise wording of the second article in explicit support of her very specific edit, I probably would have just thought her very good at research and very lucky.

I am not so sure its luck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have heard back from PANow with regards to the second source. It was added to the Classified Section of their Business Directory, and quite recently, too. It seems odd that an episode aired back in April would, within the last week, generate a spcifically-worded review that assists an editor. I call shenanigans. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That PANow page seems to be gone, with a 404 error. -- Atama頭 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The current issue at hand is that Jack keeps deleting the ref tag citing the novel A Storm of Swords in an article about an episode of the TV show based on that book [20].

The content in question is now supported by both primary and secondary sources. I do not see why we should not cite both the primary and secondary sources. What is the harm in telling the reader, "Yes, someone also opened the book itself and checked"? As per WP:PRIMARY, the novel itself is a suitable source for straight facts about its own content; the secondary sources are helpful but not necessary. As per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, the primary source is where I actually found the information; I dug up the secondary sources later solely to address Jack and one other person's concerns.

The results of the RfC were not that using a primary source was OR but one contributor argued that the primary source should not, by itself, be used to indicate that the content was non-trivial enough to include in the article; secondary sources were needed to establish this.[21] So I found more secondary sources. Jack deleted one of them without reading it [22][23]. (His summary: "This article doesn't contain that information." My summary: "Yes it does; here are its exact words.") This is not [24] [25], the first [26], second [27] or third [28] time he's done this [29]. Why don't I just go find more sources, you ask? Because Jack has established that it is a waste of my time; he won't read them.

The way I see it, I've addressed all legitimate objections to 1. the inclusion of the material itself and 2. the inclusion of the tag citing the novel. It's time to give the delete button a rest.

Every time I meet one of Jack's demands he comes up with a new one that he neglected to mention previously. He claims OR, so I point him toward WP:Primary. When people disagreed with him about the OR issue, he says that the issue wasn't really OR; it was something else. I took the time to dig up precedent articles that use the sources the way I've been using them [30]; and he continued to insist that I just take his interpretation of policy as gospel with no precedent or proof. I found source after source; he deleted the material without bothering to read them and see whether they addressed his concerns. Now he's insinuating that I put out a classified in a newspaper just to have a source for this article. It's an excuse parade.

Frankly, I'd like Jack to put all cards on the table. Disclose all objections to the statement, "This episode was based on chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" so that they can be dealt with. This "Oh, you met one of my demands? Here's a new one from out of my hat!" business has got to go.

I also find it very frustrating to put in the time and effort looking for sources only to have someone call me too lazy to "roll up my sleeves and find sources" in the comments and edit summaries with which he lifts a finger only to hit the delete button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Prince Albert source, it was working last night when I found it. That's why the citation format contains an access date. As for why it contains the same text, it's because that's what I put in the search bar: "Oathkeeper," "Jaime IX" "chapter 72" "Sansa VI," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) EDIT: And I found a working link to the Prince Albert source just now; it's cached: [31]

This isn't the place for content disputes, Darkfrog24. As to the argument that I am somehow hiding my objections to the content, it isn't a new one from the user. I've told her what she needs for inclusion: reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly notes the information she wants to add. She cannot find it, which tells me (and a consensus of others) that few reliable sources feel it important enough to mention. She chooses to ignore this, and insists on using - over multiple editors' objections - the primary source of the book to compare the book to the tv episode. It's this 'I don't like it' and gaming the system on the part of Darkfrog24 that has tied up at least four other editors for almost two months.

Pert of me wants a few editors to point out her misinterpretation of source use, though I know she won't accept it - she hasn't accepted the possibility that she's wrong when others have told her so, I am not sure how to proceed. She creates a toxic work environment, and virtually all work in the article has ceased over her pettifoggery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if this isn't the place for content disputes, then why are you here disputing content? You don't like that I re-added the tag citing the novel. I listed my reasons for re-adding the tag citing the novel, specifically that I have addressed all legitimate complaints against its inclusion. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you should probably read it before you drop its name. It concerns the inclusion or exclusion of articles and facts based solely on whether the user likes them or not. That's not my position in this debate; it's yours. You don't like listing chapters, and you hide behind other claims.

No, Jack, you haven't "told me what I need to know." You've given your own opinion and demanded that I take it as fact. I've shown you WP:PRIMARY, I've shown you precedent articles, and I've shown you source after source that specifically mentions the content in question. If sources were what you really wanted, then you would bother to read them before you hit the delete button. For the fiftieth time, if you want me to believe that you are right and I am wrong, show me something other than your own opinion, as I have shown you more than my own opinion. Show me precedent articles as I have shown you precedent articles. Show me a Wikipedia policy that supports your position as WP:PRIMARY supports mine.

And I must remind you that we are past the secondary source issue. I've provided such sources repeatedly. The issue at hand is that you must stop deleting the tag citing the primary source in addition to the secondary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but toxic work environment? 1. You don't do any work on that article except hitting the delete button. 2. Editors have made changes to other parts of the article with no trouble during our arguments. Do you think perhaps the edits on "Oathkeeper" have slowed down because it's no longer a recent episode? 3. I'm not the one tossing insults left and right. That's you, Jack. No one else, not DonQ, not myself, not DonIago, not Bal, not any of the other participants insulted or patronized other participants, just you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not going to debate content with you, Darkfrog. While I totally get your tactic here (best defense being a better offense), this complaint is about your behavior. Not mine, yours.

Several editors have removed material that you continue to add, often in violation of 3RR. You misinterpret Wikipedia's sourcing policy as "interpretation", preferring to insert your own, novel take on it. You argued this view all the way through DRN. You argued all the way through RfC. You were shown a consensus contrary to what you wanted, and so you ignored it.

It is true that I do not suffer people who try to game the system gladly, and I'll call a spade a spade. Maybe that isn't the smoothest course of action, but Assuming Good Faith does not mean ignoring bad behavior. If you don't want to be called on that bad behavior, do not exhibit it.

If you want to resolve this matter, here is what you need to do:

1. stop adding sources in defiance of not only the consensus but of our own policies and guidelines.
2. stop adding crap secondary sources that are - at the very best - suspect. Don't open yourself to allegations of creating fake references in support of your position, and
3. when you find good references, provide accurate portrayal as to their content.

That's it. As I've told you at DRN, RfC and the talk page a score of times, if your do that, we would have no problem. So long as you keep up the I don't like/get it and the addition of inappropriate sources, you are going to keep running into problems with me and other editors.

You've asked why I don't contribute more. Its because of thick-headed, thin-skinned difficult editors like you that sour me on contributing. So, when I call it a toxic environment, I do so with cause. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who got drawn into this for awhile and has tried to claw his way out since, the phrase, "Kill us both, Spock!" comes to mind. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps if both parties involved could allow other people to get a word in, rather than constantly bickering, then this issue would have been resolved already. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire dispute seems to stem from the inclusion of a primary source in conjunction with several secondary sources to support a particular statement? The statement itself is not being disputed? The spirit of our verifiability/RS policies is to ensure that statements on WIkipedia are adequately supported by external sources. If the accuracy of the statement is properly supported and is not in question, bickering about the use of an additional source to support the statements appear to be extremely petty. Regardless this is a content dispute and does not appear to be actionable - however @Jack Sebastian:, I'd like to remind you that calling editors "thick-headed, thin-skinned" is not appropriate. —Dark 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not incredibly familiar with how the dispute originated (nor do I particularly care at this point, and I think the debate has moved past that point), but the way I would read the situation is that the consensus among the involved editors was that secondary sources are needed to establish the significance/non-triviality of the assertions of the statements; it went beyond mere verifiability. That said, the RfC was never officially closed (and at this point I'd recommend that be handled by an admin), so any claims that there is a consensus are possibly being skewed by editor bias.

However, I would agree with your other points. Both of the above editors seem more interested in having a duel of words than in reaching (or possibly abiding by) a consensus, to the point that I suspect editors who might have weighed in on the discussion have opted not to get involved.

In any case, I think the content issues have been resolved with the exception of a formal closure. I feel the recent editing on the article merits scrutiny to determine whether Jack or Darkfrog have been making inappropriate changes, but hopefully it would suffice to introduce them both to trouts whales and advise them to find other ways to focus their energies (an interaction ban may be warranted). Personally I'm done with the whole situation (I don't even watch Game of Thrones), but would like to see the page-warring ended one way or another.

Anyway, I'm happy to offer what input I can as a party that got involved in this and has an opinion on the content dispute but is largely neutral with regards to the particular editors involved and the conduct matters. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doniago here was the one who suggested that we use secondary sources as a measuring stick for determining whether the content was non-trivial enough to include. So I found some. Then I found more. Of course I re-added the content; the objections to it had been dealt with. As for restoring the tag citing the novel itself, again, of course we should also cite the novel. I don't understand why Jack isn't putting this in the win column. I did what he kept saying he wanted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, are you seriously blaming me for your decision to toss out baseless accusations? Don't flip things around just because I found a source that supports content that you don't like. As for toxicity, I have read and listened to every point you made. I just don't agree with your interpretations of policy, and it's going to take more than you repeating yourself to change that. When you didn't agree with my interpretation of the rules, I took the time to dig up precedents to show you. That's not toxicity; that's a discussion. Toxicity is undoing other people's work without looking at it first. Toxicity is hitting "delete" without lifting one finger to work out a compromise text. Toxicity is writing an RfC so biased that the thing we're actually arguing about would have been unrecognizable to newcomers if I hadn't changed the text. Toxicity is bringing up issues that are not in dispute, issues that we all already agree on, over and over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read the comments from DarkFalls and Donlago, I think it best I avoid Darkfrog's PA baiting completely. I've stricken the 'thick/thin' characterization as snarky; forgive me for growing impatient with Darkfrog24. I felt that DRN and RfC were going nowhere; time and again, she wasn't addressing the actual concerns raised, and insisted on reframing the argument into a non-pertinent discussion. For over a month. So, my temper flared. I get tired and frustrated of dealing with difficult editors, too.

I had not sought to introduce a content dispute here. At all. The problem (as I saw it) was that a difficult editor continued to defy a consensus that stated that secondary sources needed to be used to support statements instead of a primary source. Subsequently, of four sources introduced, only one met our criteria for inclusion. Two of them were from user-content-created sites (one of them a fansite). The remaining one appeared to have been faked, and the suspicious nature of said reference prompted me to get more input. Considering Darkfrog's clear dedication to including the chapters from the book, it wasn't too far a leap to wonder if she had in fact created the reference on May 28th (the date the ad posted) to support this edit. If so, this needed to be addressed by someone with a larger set of tools than myself. At the very least, she needs to understand how primary and secondary references are utilized in Wikipedia; she seems to misunderstand/misinterpret them.

Lastly, since all but one of the references have proven to be fake or non-reliable, why are they still in the article? Why - in the face of consensus, is Darkfrog24 immediately trying to revert her preferred version in? I know consensus can change, but not right after a consensus has been formed.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was that I needed secondary sources to use the content and tag. I found some. I restored the content and tag. Jack is complaining anyway.

I didn't fake anything, Jack. I find a source that supports content that you don't like and you say I must have written it myself? I didn't have to write the 538 article myself. I didn't have to write the IGN or Tor or i09 articles or Storm of Swords novel or even the rejected sources like the Westeros.org article myself. What makes you think I'd have to write the Prince Albert article myself? I'm not the one who's out of line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of the consensus. It was that a secondary source should be used in place of a primary source, for various reasons noted above. The sources you then found - with the exception of the 538 article - were either non-RS or completely fake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there was not an "in place of" consensus. Go back and read it if you have to: I got secondary sources to show that the content was not trivial. There is no further reason to delete it or the reference to the source in which I found it.

I didn't fake anything. Just because there are sources that support information that you don't like doesn't automatically make them non-RS or mean that I made them up. I notice you didn't object to IGN and sources of similar quality being cited elsewhere in those articles--because you don't have a pet peeve about the content that they were supporting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The question at hand: Cite both primary and secondary or only secondary?

If anyone wants to actually help with this problem, please give your $.02 on this: If a piece of information is supported by both primary and secondary sources, must the tag citing the primary source be deleted? Must it be kept? If either is allowed, which does Wikipedia policy prefer? Does it matter which source the editor actually used to find the information? Here is the case in question, but there are others on similar pages: [32] Of the things that JS and I are butting heads over, that one looks like it could be resolved. He doesn't like that I keep listing the tag citing the novel; I don't like that he keeps deleting it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Like in all things, context matters. As far as anything that might be disputed or challenged, secondary sources are preferred. Anything personal and identifying (like gender identification, religion, sexuality, or politics) primary sources would be preferred. Primary sources are preferred when attributing something to someone. Secondary sources are preferred when claiming something as fact. Ect ect - context.--v/r - TP 23:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite honestly what's the harm in putting another source into the statement? If the statement is not in dispute, there is absolutely no reason to remove a primary source that serves to compliment a secondary source. Since when is citing more sources a bad thing? I am unsure what the fuss is all about. —Dark 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was holding off to let other people chime in, but that hasn't happened. In answer to your question, having multiple sources is a good thing, when it is required (though ref overkill can get distracting for the reader). This matter began when the user cited the book when interpreting which chapters from the books are used in the episode(s). As we all know, evaluative, comparative or interpretive analysis requires secondary sources. The additional problem is that, w/out a secondary source, it appeared to be the editor deciding this was important for inclusion, synthesis, fancruft (or both). The book does not speak to the series; therefore, it cannot be cited as a source for such.

Content-wise, with the way the writers were mixing content from the books, smooshing different book events together, or inventing new plotlines not even seen in the book, there was (and is) concern that - without a reliable secondary source - any such determination is going to always be challenged.

To date, the editor in question has sought to add several sources to the article to justify chapter-to-series interpretation. Of these, only one (from 538.com) was acceptable. Each time the editor finds a new source, the precise wording, w/out alteration, is re-added to the article. Often, the source doesn't even match the wording being reverted back into the article. Since there are so many problems with this editor and sources, it would seem prudent - and collaborative - to talk about them in discussion first. BOLD only applies when there isn't strong dissent from multiple editors. BOLD only applies when the content being added is different. That isn't the case here. Darkfrog24 seems desperate to include this material, and her recent addition of fansite, circular or deceptive sources is indicative of that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If a painting shows George Washington and a quarter shows George Washington, then it's not interpretation or smooshing to say "These both show George Washington," which is how the content in question was phrased when I was using the book as the sole source: "Content from this episode is also found in Novel chapters X, Y, and Z," and that is explicitly permitted by WP:PRIMARY. I offered to rephrase it to "[Event] happened in chapter X and [other event] in chapter Y" to address your concerns. Diego offered still another format. At no point were you in any way willing to work with anyone on finding a compromise format that would address your concerns and still provide the readers with their information.

As for the sources I selected, there's no rule requiring me to satisfy you personally or get anyone's permission. You don't like the content that they support, so you make excuses—and you don't have a single complaint about the use of similar sources elsewhere in the article.

You wanted me to find more sources, so I found some. You should have put this in the win column and moved on months ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

In the end, I feel that while both Darkfrog and Jack Sebastian are (hopefully) well-intentioned, their edit warring on Oathkeeper and the related discussion on the Talk page, including the RfC, is beyond the point where anything productive is occurring. I'm offering the following proposals for consideration.

1. An interaction ban between Darkfrog and Jack Sebastian. I'm not sure what an appropriate duration would be. Perhaps three months?
2. An article ban on both editors with regards to Oathkeeper. Again, I'm not sure what an appropriate duration would be. Six months?
3. An article ban encompassing all GoT episode-based articles.

I'm not interested in seeing either editor punished, but the disruptive bickering and edit-warring needs to stop, and regrettably neither editor seems inclined to back down, and it's my opinion that we're well-past the point where the legitimate content issues that were raised have been subsumed by the conduct issues.

If either editor has unresolved content or conduct issues, they can bring them up as a new filing in the appropriate forum...and hopefully make more of an effort to stay on point. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I feel that I'd be punished for simply keep bad or fake refs out of the article. I am not adding bad refs, and while i admit to reacting badly to Darkfrog's tactics, I think that banishing me from the GoT articles (because, frankly, she's edited several of them as well) is overly harsh. While I would be delighted to not have to interact with Darkfrog24 again, this ANI complaint is about her suspect behavior, not mine. I haven't edit-warred text into the article. I haven't added crap references to said article to keep aforementioned text. I haven't defied or twisted the intent of the consensus. Darkfrog24 has. And there is very little indication - based upon her repeated visits to ANI - that that would change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about any other articles. And while you may have opened the ANI complaint, it's my opinion that your conduct during it hasn't been especially great either. For instance, if anyone had asked, there would have been several times during this situation where I would have recommended that you wait for an uninvolved party (or even me) to say something. I've limited my participation more than I might have specifically because your arguments with each other were discouraging. I'm past the point of caring who initiated which actions and/or who's "right". DonIago (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever else you did or didn't say, Don, be advised that our dispute also includes Breaker of Chains, The Climb... It's not just Oathkeeper. I had been planning to add single-sentence chapter information to lots of GoT episode articles and still plan to do so if this matter ever gets resolved.

Jack, quit calling it a fake ref. I didn't fake anything; I just found a source for something that you don't like. Get proof or quit with the accusations. As for my tactics, the only thing I've done is disagree with your interpretation of policy, listen to everything you have to say, and offer you sources and policy and precedent and compromise texts. Oh, and I've called you on it when you've told lies. Those are my tactics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I've added an option to my proposal that includes all GoT episode articles. DonIago (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would offer an alternative.

I would propose that we offer a definitive answer as to whether we should allow books to be cited for episodes. That's what initiated this entire mess, and even Darkfrog24 was looking for a clarification/ruling on the matter. Once that is accomplished, the personality issues would likely diminish - there would be so much less to argue about. I don't particularly want to interact with her, but I don't want to be banned from articles that I am interested in. For DF, a topic ban would hardly be an imposition, as she edits a wide range of articles. It would cut my editing content down by half. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Any topic or interaction ban is extremely premature and ill-advised at this point. I don't believe their interaction is toxic to such a point that there is no recourse except to ban them from interacting with each other/the topic. Interaction/topic bans should not be handed out lightly. I hold onto hope that consensus may develop and an agreement may be reached; if not, alternative dispute resolutions do exist. Quite honestly regarding the content itself I don't understand why there is such furore over the inclusion of primary sources - I'd like to note that WP:SYNTHESIS applies more to the statements themselves being fabricated or unduly implied by the sources.

For example, if a source states that "Harry is a bird of some kind" and the statement says "Harry is a chicken", then there is synthesis. But if the statement says "Harry is a chicken" and you have a secondary source stating that "Harry is a chicken" and a primary source stating "I am a bird of some kind", there really is no problem including both sources. Original research applies to the statements in the article itself - it applies less so to the sources referenced. On another note, is it really worth bickering over this? Honestly I am baffled at how minor this dispute appears to be. Quite honestly, sometimes it's better off if you just walk away. —Dark 03:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay so after having a look at the RfC, the main problem I see is that both editors are not letting anyone else get a word in with the constant bickering. I'd encourage both editors to shut up for a few days and stop edit warring over the inclusion of sources, otherwise I'll just lock the page for a few days and noone can edit (something I would prefer not to do). As I understand it, the dispute is on the use of the book as a source for the tv show episode. To my understanding, there needs to be a reliable secondary source specifying a link between the show and the book ("the episode follows the events of the book as specified in...") Only then should the primary source be used as a reference. Personally I would create a separate "production" topic in the article, stating (with secondary sources) how the writing and production of the episode has been influenced by this chapter of the novel etc. (See some FAs: Squeeze (The X-Files), Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)) That way you are indirectly including the novel as a "source" while not explicitly citing it. —Dark 03:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I could live with that, I guess - so long as an actual reliable reference presented itself. Any ideas on how to approach the magical vanished reference? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find something here that explains the similarity/differences between the book and the tv show. —Dark 06:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark, I don't understand what you mean by "not letting anyone else get a word in." Two people making posts does not prevent any third, fourth or fifth person from making posts.

I just got back from an eight-day absence, so that whole "take a break thing" might not help.

WP:PRIMARY seems to permit the use of novels in this way. Nonetheless, I did find secondary sources. And more. And more. And more. Jack has repeatedly deleted the content as unsourced without bothering to look at the sources provided. [33][34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. THAT is why I have not put still more effort into finding still more sources—he doesn't bother to look at them. Others he dismisses for trivial reasons. Jack says he wants secondary sources, but using them doesn't seem to satisfy him. That is why I think there's something else going on here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd point out that I'd apologized for the 538.com removals (2 of them), as it appears to be the only secondary reference that Darkfrog24 has added that holds up to any level of scrutiny. The remainder of the links were mostly of DF's edit summary rationalizations for including fanblogs or mysteriously appearing and disappearing sources. She's currently arguing in another GoT article - with another user that we should include user-run fansites - so to better support her listings of chapters. Granted - I am difficult to work with when someone gets my Irish up, but this is a pattern with Darkfrog24. She wants those chapters in, and has been willing to argue with everyone to get them in.

I am willing to come to compromise in agreeing to the chapters - if they are supported by an explicit, reliable source. I've said this since this admittedly WP:LAME argument began, over a month ago. DF keeps saying that I keep moving the bar higher. It has never changed - she has simply failed to meet our standards for inclusion. What is truly lame about this argument is that she is arguing about material that everyone else has told her she has to cite as per policy/guideline, and she calls it "interpretation." How does anyone discuss rationally with such a person? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You apologized and then you did it again, and then you did it again. You've established a pattern, Jack. I find a source and then you dismiss it out of hand without looking at it. That leaves me to conclude that sources aren't really what you want here.

The chapters are supported by an explicit, reliable source—the novel is by definition the most reliable source possible with respect to its own content. I've also found article after article.

Excuse, me "everyone else"? Go back and look at our discussions. Go back and look at the RfC. Not everyone in this discussion agreed with you.

And yes, "Using a novel as a source to cite facts about its own content is OR" is your interpretation. What WP:PRIMARY actually says is, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge," which is what I did. This is what you have to stop doing. This is what is making it almost impossible to work with you: Stop acting as if your own opinions are gospel. Acknowledge them as your own beliefs. Acknowledge that no one is obligated to automatically agree with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to stop posting after this, unless I am asked a specific question by someone else here. You will recall that Donlago (and likely others) noted that they can't get a word in edgewise.I think its high time you took the hint; I finally am.

I will say this for the last time: you are taking your quotation from PRIMARY out of context; read the entire passage about the uses of primary sources. Ask around. Ask admins or other editors who have been here for years. You aren't going to take my word - or the word of any other editor in the articles you edit - so ask around. You've wasted enough time. Ask, instead of doing the same thing wrong over and over.
Almost all of the sources you are "finding" are not suitably secondary for use in Wikipedia articles, and do not support the text you have been wishing to add for over a month. Of course myself and others are going to remove them.
If you had simply listened to others - or asked around - you could have avoided wasting almost two months of your - and everyone else's - time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't read the policy. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I wasn't listening to you; it means that the things you have to say aren't as convincing as you think they are. As for asking around, you called an RfC. The respondents were split on the issue. Stop acting as if your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is the only one. You've seen that it isn't.

Yeah, they're "not suitable" because they support content that you just don't like. The fact that there are so many pages listing this information should be a big hint. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of issues at Talk:Metamodernism that could use admin attention

The article's talk page is plagued by constant unsubstantiated accusations of COI, quasi-OUTING, and borderline incivility (I see now that passive-aggressive and aggressive-aggressive user page templates are being exchanged). It seems to have drawn a couple separate waves of SPAs and relatively new editors: briefly early in the year, then at the end of May, in the last couple days. Almost all participants maintain an unusual level of aggression on the subject, with sustained vague criticism of the article and editor-based accusations. I strongly suspect sock puppetry is afoot given the kind of arguments, tactics, and intensity of the arguments presented, as well as some of the new users supporting each other on other pages. I'm not bringing this to SPI just yet, though, because I don't have time to pull diffs at the moment. The dispute seems to hinge on a pair of researchers, Vermeulen and van Akker, who have had a prominent place in the article and whose definition of "metamodernism" seems to be [among] the most prominent. The researchers launched a blog, metamodernism.com, and this article has collected a number of references to that blog. Many users have asserted that this article is a place for Vermeulen and van Akker to advertise their blog (something to that effect). I don't know, but I do know that my attempts to keep the discussion focused on content have been failing and I don't have faith that a positive consensus will be reached (positive consensus as opposed to people being driven off Wikipedia). TL;DR - could we get some additional eyeballs at Talk:Metamodernism? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  07:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Dispute seems to be too long as many of the new users are also adding and removing content as Calleguas first removed Shia LaBeouf from the "In Cinema" list of metamodernists. I think article needs to be temporally protected till dispute gets solved. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 08:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for a week after seeing A.Minkowiski's request at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: A.Minkowiski closed this thread, but I am opening it back up, as the alleged outing, personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry still deserve discussion. Full protection is a start to improving things at the article, but it's probably not the only thing that needs doing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for re-opening, dispute seems to be calm. But yes, may be there is possibility of sockpuppetry there that needs attention. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So, as an involved editor in this particular dispute, here is the brief history of the argument (though perhaps too out of hand to still be an "argument" at the moment) as I see it: I had removed a large bit of content from the "Metamodernism" page that was either uncited or sourced to metamodernism.com, a blog run by writers Vermeulen and van Akker that in no way passes WP:RS. Another editor (who remained uninvolved once the arguing was initiated) had reverted this and left a message on the talk page asking as to why the information was removed. The first editor to reply was Festal82, who has been extremely vocal in expressing that he believes the article should be using metamodernism.com as a primary source. I initially responded with the rationalization that 1. what I had removed was either unsourced or improperly sourced and 2. the article had been using the blog citations to state the opinions of Vermeulen and van Akker as objective fact. A long debate process began after this, with various other editors coming and going. My most recent bits on the talk page express that, after reading input from several other editors, the article should be put up for AfD as it violates the four main guidelines posted on WP:AfD (notability cannot be established, nor can verifiability of the majority of the sources; as I already pointed out, I do not believe metamodernism.com to be a reliable source, which also seems to violate several WP:NOT policies). Other involved editors have taken similar stances, though most are more willing to compromise that the blog only be used to outline specific examples of what is "metamodernism" as provided by terminology founders Vermeulen and van Akker. Festal82 however has continued being extremely militant in arguing in favor of the notability and reliability of the blog in question, to the point where he is now manufacturing conspiracy theories about other users and edit stalking me. Almost all of his recent replies on the talk page have grossly misrepresented what the other user had posted, both twisting statements from other editors to promote what seems to be an agenda, and picking apart opposing arguments to attempt to reflect extreme hostility from the user posting them. I have not stated this yet, but I strongly believe Festal82 to be either Vermeulen or van Akker (I had however stated my suspicion of the two editing the article). He seems to have a large array of knowledge about the two's beliefs and their history, much more than what was in the page, is on their site, or that I could find while conducting research on the topic (I would like to point out that somewhere around 80% of the Google search results I get for "metamodernism" are on either metamodernism.com or family sites). Now there are a handful of reliable sources that reference "metamodernism" (though none actually establish it in such a way that could support an article), which seem to have been utilized alongside the mm.com ones to employ the WP:SYNTH concept. Festal82 also argued that because Vermeulen and van Akker have some professional collegiate background, their blog should be treated as a reliable source, to which I replied with the argument that a non-reliable site remains non-reliable no matter who the author is, especially in this case in which the blog is a shrine to the two's personal beliefs.

In a nutshell: I believe writers Vermeulen and van Akker are using Wikipedia as a platform to promote a terminology they invented, sourcing only their personal blog, and that Festal82 is one of the two. felt_friend 15:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to say except that administrators can, and I'm sure will, review the Talk page and see that Felt friend is confusing me with someone else, which is not surprising given that things have been confusing over there for months and this editor only arrived within the last 24 hours. Esmeme (another WP editor whose disagreements with me, and vice versa, can be found all over the metamodernism Talk page) is the editor who has long wanted "Notes on Metamodernism" (NoM) to be the only source cited on the page, and as Rhododendrites can confirm I've been working for many weeks now trying to ensure that many, many other sources are used as citations--in fact, a review of the history of the page will show that I've never added a citation from NoM to the page, and in fact have been the one who's added nearly all of the non-NoM content. As for AfD, Felt friend has made factually incorrect statements repeatedly in support of this position; I know that Felt friend knows this, too, because yesterday Felt friend tried to claim that a search for "metamodern" on Google only brought up "blog posts and tumblr sites," when in fact, as I showed Felt friend, in fact it brings up references in dozens of major U.S. and U.K. media sites (all of which I listed for Felt friend). As for "Notes on Metamodernism," I've consistently--perhaps thirty times--referred to that site as "a non-WP:N blog" in debates with Esmeme, so the claim now that I not only think otherwise but in fact run the site I've disparaged repeatedly in that way is just astounding. In any case, as I've told Felt friend, I'm an American metamodernist; I am not Dutch. That should be no surprise, given that metamodernism is not in fact a fringe movement and there are metamodern scholars like myself on multiple continents. If any of you have ever found yourselves in the creepy situation of having some editor you don't know and have barely interacted with start making wild claims about you that suggest the editor not only has some sort of agenda but also--worse--is repeatedly confusing you with other people, please know that that's the experience I'm having now. And a review of the Talk page will confirm all of this. Thanks to all. Festal82 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to say that I have never ever taken the position that "Notes on Metamodernism" should be the only source cited on the page, as Festal82 mistakenly (and repeatedly) asserts. Far from it, as I have consistently sought to add reliable and notable secondary sources to enhance the integrity of the article. The talk page and my edit history shows this. Esmeme (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't held any of the positions Festal claims that I do either, for the record. I've responded to his blatant straw-manning of me over at felt friend's userpage. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Esmeme, I'm willing to let the past lie. If we both want this to be an article that uses a range of sources and citations from both sides of the Atlantic and from major media outlets as well as specialized fora like NoM, we are in agreement and ought not argue further about it. I've added a comment to the Talk page at metamodernism, and while I won't go back and edit it now in light of what I've just said--meaning, I did repeat there a view about your edits that I'm happy to put aside now if we can just move on from all this--I think the upshot is that you, me, and Rhododendrites should jointly ask for the Dumitrescu sentence to be deleted by the administrators, and then allow the page to be locked for a month or so to let things cool down. I've said for months that the danger of our disagreement at metamodernism was that not editing the article carefully now could lead to the entire article being jeopardized down the line, which neither you nor I nor metamodernists around the globe want, and hopefully all of this has simply underscored that the edits I made, however much I know you did not like most of them, were, as I always said, made in an effort to shore up the article against wild attacks upon it of the sort we're now seeing from "inanygivenhole" and "felt_friend." Festal82 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 For context, Felt friend is voicing similar concerns/accusations as a handful of other editors on the page, most vocally at the moment Inanygivenhole. festal82 seems to indeed be the target of a lot of those criticisms and accusations. I've explained Wikipedia policy on the talk page concerning reliable sources, npov, and so on, such that many of these claims/concerns should not still persist, but it doesn't seem to hold interest. I would urge any third parties who want to understand the basis for the content dispute to look to the article talk page and not what happens to be duplicated here. But it's not for the content dispute that I started this thread. Having followed the page for a few weeks now, while I've seen both Festal82 and Esmeme edit warring and engaging in similar kinds of accusations, I nonetheless feel comfortable assuming good faith and believe them both to have the best interest of the article in mind (even if their interests conflict). I have not formed the same opinion of the others involved in the dispute, who I'm not sure are here to build an encyclopedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the dispute needs to adopt a different tone IMMEDIATELY. Straw-manning and baseless accusations will not do. This is just an article, and I think it would do well if some editors remembered that. The tone of the previous discussion was unacceptable, and matters quickly got out of hand. I'm glad I woke up to someone bringing this to the community's attention. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving this...

Can we discuss the article objectively for a bit? Sans any potential COIs and SOAPs, we need to come to a conclusion about what to do with this page as soon as possible. Here are the questions that have gone unanswered the past few days:

1. Is the topic even notable?
2. Is there any concrete definition of "metamodernism"
3. Can the metamodernism.com blog be used to exemplify the opinions of those responsible for any notability the terminology may have?

My personal stance is that the topic is, for the time being, not notable enough to warrant an article and thus should be deleted as per reasons 5,6, and 8 of WP:DEL-REASON. There doesn't appear to be a solid definition of "metamodernism", making it more of a buzzword than anything else. And as I've said before, the fact that Vermeulen and van Akker are the publishers of the mm.com blog doesn't automatically make it a reliable source, and the more I look into the two, the less notable I see them as being. felt_friend 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't really for solving content disputes. The reason I brought it here is because of violations of behavioral policies and general dysfunction at the talk page. I don't think starting the same discussion here will help. My hope is that, although it hasn't really happened so far except to protect the page, others will get involved so we can get other voices in the mix. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone might want to take another look at that talkpage. Festal's started throwing out personal attacks. Also, I agree with Rhododenrites, @Felt friend:, you should post that on the talkpage instead. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to disrupt RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Collect has ignored warnings in the RfC discussion and on the page of an admin regarding his first attempt to impede the RfC Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F, and now has made a second attempt, leaving another comment at the RfC with the edit summary time to hat all of this tendentiousness incarnate

The first attempt was this Basta! and unhat material objected to by the OP -- if you do not like something, ignore it -- hatting simply annoys everyone else

I replied to that here.

Posts on User:Black Kite's talk page were this and this.

The only person being tendentious is Collect, while he accuses me of that conduct violation. That would seem to be more than a simple violation of WP:AGF, verging on harassment of a sort.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC); 05:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today et seq and Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F et seq. I suggest the sheer volume of posts by a single editor meets the common sense definition of "tendentious". As for "harassment" I suggest the amount of "evidence" that specific editor sought to present at ArbCom which was not evidence of much at all is much more clearly "harassment" indeed. I invite everyone to read that RfC, noting the wording at its start, and the fact that a large number of editors have tried to explain the basic principles of WP:RS there, again and again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(note this makes three separate simultaneous venues for his same discussion now - four if you include ArbCom pages -- which should be quite sufficient indeed for any issues on Wikipedia. Five if you include his Black Kite posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite participating in the discussion at the RS noticeboard, I didn't even know there was an RfC going on elsewhere on the same subject… RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You now know about a multitude of venues -- all reaching the exact same conclusions <g>. Collect (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Your assertion(s) about "form shopping" is incoherent. The issue at hand here is your conduct in relation to attempts to disrupt the RfC. This is not about the content dispute.

@RGloucester: If you check the RS/N thread, there is a notice regarding the RfC that I posted there shortly after starting the RfC, here, on the 20th.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Five locations is easy to see for your iterated complaints about me and about your heilige Krieg for "Russia Today" as an unquestionable "reliable source." Calling a clear post "incoherent" is kind of obvious as a stratagem when using multiple forums about a single editor. Cheers, now kindly stop the harassment when it is clear that many others also demur on your position on "Russia Today". Collect (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you need to be reminded, again, that this notice board relates to your conduct, not the ongoing RS/N thread or RfC pertaining to the Guideline "Identifying reliable sources". You are free to disagree with my positions in the content dispute as much as you like, but you cannot scream about them and level persona attacks at me in an attempt to try and derail or otherwise obstruct the relevant discussion.

The fact that I have raised your conduct on an Arbcom case not related to the present RfC is irrelevant to this thread. this thread is specifically about your conduct at the RfC and on Black Kite's talk page. In addition, the baseless accusations of WP:HARASS and WP:TE you have made here can also be considered as personal attacks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Personal attacks? Who first accused another of tendentious editing here? Oh yeah... it was you.
2. The ANI thread will go anywhere it ends up going. You can't force it to stay on the topic you want it to. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it might help if you could read the diffs before commenting here.

If you were to do so, you would see that Collect has accused me of being tendentious, without grounds, and in doing so has attempted to disrupt the progress of an RfC, which is part of the dispute resolution process here. Moreover, he did that following a query to an admin regarding an initial disruptive comment.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to your comment: "the baseless accusations of WP:HARASS and WP:TE you have made here can also be considered as personal attacks." Here necessarily implying here, in this thread. Therefore, I responded as I saw appropriate. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my accidental revert here. DP fixed it JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ubikwit, I'm sorry but I am confused by what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want Collect to get a proverbial slap to the wrist for labelling the RfC as tendentious? Let me ask you if ANI is the appropriate forum for that. I would also be very careful with accusations of harassment without sufficient proof. —Dark 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

He has twice tried to disrupt the progress of an RfC, not just called it tendentious without grounds.

He unhatted material posted to the RfC by Volunteer Marek that was equally disruptive and tried to dismiss the RfC.

Black Kite didn't provide any input regarding the wording of the RfC, with respect to which I made some adjustments. At any rate, the RfC has been moving along, with discussion of relevant essays and proposals for amending the Guideline. Collect's last edit was purely disruptive.

What do I want admins to do? Whatever it takes to prevent him from further disrupting the RfC, and leveling baseless accusations, which amount to making personal attacks. Considering that I raised this at an admins page and that he persists in the same manner shows more than just a pattern, it shows that he thinks he can flaunt the system.

Note that while you seem to be cautioning me for raising the issue of possible harassment, on this thread Collect has twice accused me of harassing him, once for presenting evidence at Arbcom, which is a ludicrous accusation, and second for participating in discussions related to a source at RS/N and the RfC I started.

To me that seems like a clear attempt to intimidate me in order to eliminate the competition from a content dispute he fears he is going to lose.

Meanwhile, not only has he persisted in attempting to disrupt the RfC and belittle the effort vis-a-vis the Guideline, he has leveled the ludicrous accusation of forum shopping here in this thread with respect to completely unrelated matters. Nothing of which could be further from the truth than forum shopping. How many baseless accusations--which are tantamount to personal attacks,--does it take to be considered harassment? The top of WP:HARASS states

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

10 posts on this topic here, 30 at RS/N, 44 at talk RS, 8 at an ArbCom proposed decision, over 140 at the ArbCom evidence and workshop pages (all about guess which editor?), attacks on me at The Shock Doctrine in 13 posts, 5 posts about me at User Talk:Black Kite, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sairp/Archive where the editor goes on a blatant fishing expedition at SPI, and his beautiful interpretation of civility at [41] where he posts Fuck off! to another editor, ad nauseum. Cheers. - but making well over two hundred edits attacking a single editor would seem to be in Guinness territory in less than a month in multiple venues. I suspect "tendentious" is a mild term for such behaviour. And I did not go back over a month for these counts - I suspect he is actually over four hundred edits about me by now over all. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

From the above rant, it will be evident that Collect is evading the issue regarding the complaint about his conduct on a specific thread, attempting to divert it to encompass numerous venues in which we have interacted--attacking the messenger, as it were.

As he points out, I filed evidence against him at the American Politics Arbcom case, but the decision took a minimal tact there. Needless to say, my evidence was valid, not something that resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG. Collects seems to be implying that Arbcom got it wrong by not sanctioning me for posting evidence against him. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling Collect's comment a "rant" is hardly correct - or productive. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is not correct about it? He accuses me in that thread of "attacking him" repeatedly, which is nonsense, and emotionally out of control.

I take it that you are not an admin, and am curious as to the motivation for your participation here, as your comments are all off the mark and serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: Now that I've checked your history, I see that you are an SPA, and that your comments on this thread are your first on any noticeboard. I don't mean not to WP:AGF, but aside from the fact that you didn't even read the diffs upon which this thread is based, your comments belie the fact that you have little knowledge of policy.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Did you even look at his contribution history? RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but maybe the link was wrong. I saw this, all about Dr. Who. But then I tried another approach and found other contributions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do have my contributions linked in my signature, so they shouldn't be too hard to find. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ubikwit: I usually stay out of the discusions on ANI, but this was a bit too much. I can't assume good faith when I read Ubikwit's claim that G S Palmer is an SPA. A quick check of their edit count shows 6,487 edits on 2,717 unique pages, and considering how long Ubikwit has been around he/she ought to know where to check things like that. I see Ubikwit's claim as just an attempt to smear G S Palmer, and make them appear less trustworthy, which combined with Ubikwit's clear WP:OWN behaviour on a number of articles ought to result in some form of sanction, such as a week or two of forced leave from WP. Thomas.W ^talk 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I admitted the mistake and imediately struck the comment, so what is your problem?

I not that I have never interacted with you on Wikipedia before, so what is the basis of your baseless accusation about me owning articles?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that only one admin has chimed in here, Black Kite has abstained from commenting, even though he has commented on other threads, and the two non-admins commenting have an obvious anti-Ubikwit bias.

This is the second time you've made a comment about non-admins posting here. While this is a forum to ask for admin action, it is decidedly not the case that only admins are welcome to contribute.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I'm aware of that, thank you. The point I wanted to make was that I have been caused to reply to random hostile comments by two non-admins, one of whom didn't read the diffs upon which the dispute is based and the other who baseless accused me of WP:OWN from out of the blue with zero context, and no prior interaction history with me. Meanwhile, no admins were intervening to keep the discussion topic, or to call on Collect to answer the for his purely disruptive comments at the RfC.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You have just made a baseless accusation against me regarding owning articles, and that is a personal attack. I have not been accused of that to date.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, and I'm involved at the RS noticeboard. Despite this, I can certainly give you a little advice: this type of combative behaviour isn't going to get you anywhere at ANI. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The conduct that is supposed to be under examination here first and foremost is that of Collect's. Thus far, there has been unquestioned toleration of Collect's evasive counterattacks made instead of a response, and two editors with whom I have never interacted before have leveled accusations without assuming good faith, with one resorting to a blatant personal attack.

I beg to differ as to the characterization of my behavior, though I would have to agree that some of the comments here have been inflammatory.—Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've learned, in my own experience at ANI, that when one brings a matter here, one has to be prepared for one's own behaviour to be examined just as much as the party that one requests to be examined. Of course, this is necessary, because how else could a fair review be had? The whole purpose of this board is so that editors that are third parties can examine the behaviour of those involved in a dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a given. I've been here enough times to now that.

What you seem to be missing is that the scope of the dispute relates to behavior on a single thread. Collect has not responded to that at all, but attempted to obfuscate the issue by bringing in other matters, trying to expand the scope and introduce unrelated issues from other forums, such as my introducing evidence against him at Arbcom.

If you haven't examined the RfC, I suggest that you take a look. Since you are familiar with the RS/N thread, some things should be clear.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have got a lot of things wrong, Ubikwit. So I suggest you start by taking a good look at the top of this page, where you will find this: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.", meaning that non-admins are free to join the discussions here, whether you like it or not. And when you're done with that I suggest you click on this link: WP:BOOMERANG (a page that you have linked to in this thread but obviously haven't read), where you will find this: "There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.". Meaning that comments about your behaviour on WP are as on topic in this thread as comments about Collect's behaviour. Thomas.W ^talk 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be taking that quote out of context. The context is

There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves.

In other words, the incident means the scope of the dispute. I don't have any qualms about my conduct related to the incident that is the subject of this report being subjected to scrutiny.

The incident relates to a clear attempt to disrupt an RfC by asking if someone would "hat the entire discussion, please".

In that regard, there is this Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs, which I gather is policy.

Collect's initial remark in that thread (linked to above), met with a warning from me, was followed by the above request and assertion that "this is now reaching the point where "tendentious" is an understatement". The request for someone to hat the entire discussion seems like a flagrant violation of the RfC policy, and flaunted the warning. It's cut and dry case of Collect trying to interfere with an RfC in order to win a content dispute. The fact that an RfC is part of the dispute resolution process, which seems to exacerbate the tendentiousness. If your are trying to resolve a dispute and someone disrupts that process, that disruptive conduct clearly falls under the category of battleground behavior.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. Any editor who posts a complaint here is as much fair game as the editor the original complaint is about. The ANI archive is full of threads/complaints where the original poster was the one who got sanctioned, and not the user the OP filed a complaint against. And the same goes for all other noticeboards (particularly WP:AN3, the edit-warring noticeboard). So don't file a complaint unless you're prepared to have your own actions looked at too. Thomas.W ^talk 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your entitled to your interpretation of that text, and I don't intend to argue with you.

If you have anything constructive to say, please do; however, I trust that you won't make any further baseless accusations against me.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. The actions of OPs are certainly liable to be examined, hence the existence of WP:BOOMERANG. The difs above seem to show more problematic behavior of Ubikwit and not "disruption of an RfC" by another editor. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you I have had interaction with on WP before, so why don't you be a little more specific about the "problematic behavior". What conduct violations are you implying that I committed as evidenced in the above diffs to which you refer. Which diffs? What conduct?

I'll simply disagree without you about the disruption of the RfC.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Since subtlety appears to not have worked, let's be a little more blunt. When multiple editors have told you that your behaviour is combative and you ignore their comments, dismissing them as bad faith and having hidden agenda, then the problem does not lie on them. When noone else has complained about Collect's comments other than yourself (even though the comments themselves have been seen by multiple people), then it is extremely likely that there is nothing wrong with the comments. Regarding the RfC, I can certainly see based solely on your comments on this thread, how the RfC may be perceived as tendentious. You posit that Collect's actions in the RfC was battleground behaviour which is ironic given the nature of your own comments on this issue. I would suggest that you drop this, before you dig yourself a deeper hole. —Dark 17:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil actions and unbased accusations by ProgGuy

For several days now, an edit war has existed between ProgGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymous user 108.64.172.207 have been edit warring over musical genres listed within the infobox of Mr. Bungle article. Neither user were in violation of 3RR, nor were they vandalizing the article. 108.64.172.207 was reverting to a version of the genre list that has been generally accepted for about 4 years now. ProgGuy would then revert the article back to the way he wants it. After the second day, ProgGuy did address the issue on the Mr. Bungle talk page but it was more of a command to stop adding the death metal genre, than it was an attempt at coming to a consensus. [42] Two days later, ProgGuy took to 108.64.172.207's talk page with a demand that the reverts stop. He also stated that the information was unsourced yet his own reverts were equally unsoured. I also suggested both of them trying to actually discuss it on the article's talk page in order to gain a consensus by everyone and not just him. [43] It was then that I attempted to step in and address both of them. [44] That led to a response from ProgGuy in which he made unbased accusations of being 108.64.172.207 and that my using an anonymous IP was considered by him to be "an act of cowardice." [45] I assured him that I was NOT the anonymous user and invited him to have an admin do an IP check on me to prove it. I additionally mentioned again that the version he was reverting to himself was also not sourced. [46] Personally, I don't have a opinion about what genres are listed for this vastly multi-genre band. In the end, genres can be a matter of opinion and taste. My point all along has been that if someone is going to remove information that they feel is poorly sourced or not sourced at all, they should also have to provide sources for the information that they are putting in its place. ProgGuy's next course of action was to place a bogus edit warring report against 108.64.172.207 in which he stated that the user had been warned multiple times to stop edit warring. [47] No procedure was followed before doing so. BOTH users had been edit warring but no proper warning procedure was followed and the accusing party was just as guilty. In fairness to the anonymous user, I spoke up and made these facts known. [48] The result was an admin semi-protecting the article for 3 days. [49] Meanwhile, the reverts continue on the article and the "discussion" continuing on the article's talk page. ProgGuy continues to assess the reverts as vandalism and to accuse me, once again, of being the anonymous user, 108.64.172.207. In doing so, he's also brought name calling of "coward" back into play. [50] This is not an isolated issue. It's also worth noting that he has made the accusation against another user, SonOfPlisskin, of being the very same anonymous editor, 108.64.172.207 within the Mudvayne article talk page. [51] It seems anybody with a different opinion must be using an anonymous IP address and that we're all cowards in ProgGuy's eyes. Many of us are vetran editors and no, we're not all going to agree or even get along, but for the most part, we all try to work together. Before the edit warring is even address, the big issue seems to be civility. Name calling, accusations and false reports do not have a place here. NJZombie (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The semi protection was inappropriate and I have notified the admin involved accordingly. Will warn all editors involved in the edit warring, hopefully people are willing to provide proper sourcing and discuss it, rather than doing pointless reverts. —Dark 11:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On a completely separate tangent and for future reference, admins are unable to run IP checks. Our elusive checkusers are the only ones that have access to those tools. —Dark 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. That's what I actually meant but just chose the wrong wording. Thanks again! NJZombie (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Did you really just claim that no procedure had been followed on my part? Seems like you're the one making these edits and are actively trying too hard to defend them rather than acknowledging that maybe there's a problem with adding a fancrufty genre without any sources to defend it. "Generally accepted" nothing. It's either accepted or it isn't. You can't be "somewhat pregnant". ProgGuy (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And the baseless accusations continue. I did say you failed to follow procedure. You filed a report on the user and said you gave warning when all you did was tell him to stop while continuing to edit war yourself. Whether you're wrong or right, continuing to revert back and forth is edit warring. You also accused them of vandalism and although annoying, no, putting up information you disagree with, wrong or right is not vandalism. While I truly do not care about your suspicions that I'm that editor, PLEASE use WP:CHK and follow that procedure to file a WP:SOCK report on me and that user. Even without the check user process, it's actually pretty simple to look up an IP location and see that the editor in question is in Florida. My own IP address of 24.146.186.251 is in NJ, hence the NJ in my username. that being said, I've now given you the link to start the procedure of proving me to be this other editor. Use it and put your mind at rest. Sometimes people just don't agree with you and will say it. NJZombie (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Block and clean up needed now

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know this isn't WP:AIV (had a report over there long before this one), but 72.181.249.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has tripled their vandalism since being reported, with plenty of pages that need deleted and salted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to @Acroterion: for the block and cleanup. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behavior of 50.128.184.140

50.128.184.140 "injected humor" into an article. When warned by another user, he lectured them and added OR to said article. I complained previously to 50.128.184.140 about his behavior, and he dismissed my complaints, so I see no value in discussing the matter with him first. (I'll notify him immediately, of course.) -- UKoch (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a run-of-the-mill vandal - revert, warn, report (at WP:AIV). GiantSnowman 20:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some 3 1/2 hours ago. His case just sits there because nobody there at the moment seems to know what to do with this IP-user. - Takeaway (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You issued a final warning too soon. He's not editing at the moment so not causing a problem. If he re-appears let us know. GiantSnowman 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I issued a final warning because that was the logical thing to do after the previous final warning he had gotten for June. And he did go on editing after that, although not vandalism, but without references, probably OR. This has been reverted in the meantime by user:Canterbury Tail - Takeaway (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The ping-pongish way IP trolls are [not] dealt with here sometimes reminds me of this exchange from Duck Soup:

Groucho: And now, members of the cabinet... we'll take up old business.

Cabinet Member: I wish to discuss the tariff.

Groucho: Sit down, that's new business.

Groucho: No old business? Very well... we'll take up new business.

Cabinet Member: Now, about that tariff...

Groucho: Too late, that's old business already. Sit down.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Cabinet Member: Gentlemen, gentlemen. Enough of this. How about taking up the tax?

Firefly: How about taking up the carpet?

Member: I still insist we take up the tax!

Firefly: [to his secretary] He's right—you've got to take up the tacks before you take up the carpet.

BMK (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not a rapidly changing IP address. In this edit of 22 June, the IP says he's BruceDavidWilner. Six days later, the IP address adds a link to a page that Bruce creates eight minutes later. Since the IP's declaring who he is, this isn't improper sockpuppetry, but it demonstrates that the IP doesn't change rapidly. For this reason, we ought to treat the IP address like a registered username instead of declining action because a report is stale. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with this IP user is that they don't give any sources for their edits. The vandalism warnings mainly come from them adding unwarranted "humour" into Wikipedia articles. - Takeaway (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the right place to go when there are multiple issues?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm a fairly new editor and I've never written one of these before. I hope I'm in the right place and am doing "diffs" correctly.

I began work on an incomplete article [[52]] that contained lots of errors, private opinions, and more than a few questionable references. I edited this and an associated article for weeks (all my edits: [[53]] ), when all of a sudden, much of my material, all referenced to two of the primary academic reference books used for the articles, was removed [[54]]. Then, the related article that I had also updated saw it's material removed as well.[[55]].

My formatting was called "shitty" in the summary line [[56]], I was told of a scholarly consensus that didn't exist [[57]], and I was informed that "this isn't the place for people to learn how to edit". [[58]]. My first contact on the talk page was not very... welcoming [[59]]. On my second contact, I was accused of being dishonest.[[60]]

Apparently I've stumbled into an article with a long list of issues. The subject (Shakespeare's authorship) really doesn't engage me, but the history of the debate I find fascinating, and I actually own two of the most oft used reference books on the subject. I tried several times to rewrite some offending sentences, [[61]], [[62]], and everything was deleted. No one even offered a rewrite - of any kind. Only when I demanded a reference for the words "scholarly consensus", were these two words removed - but then they were replaced with a flat out misstatement, and an opinion being stated as a fact.[[63]].

After all this, now these editors want to "talk", and are laying down mountains of extraneous text, all the while, ignoring the questions I ask. They have yet to change one additional word to answer these issues.

I have disengaged from most editing, and am here to find out if anything can be done. Presently, the two articles, [[64]] and [[65]], begin with with errors or opinions. The leads don't reflect the articles, the notes and references are embarrassing, and new editors are bullied off or told they shouldn't be editing. What is done in situations like this?

PS - while I was writing this, I see another of my contributions was removed because the academic reference book "is wrong".[[66]]. With this kind of reasoning, I don't know where to start.

The editors behind these actions are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Reedy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nishidani

Submitted by FatGuySeven (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• This topic (Shakespeare authorship question) was the subject of arbitration, see WP:ARBSAQ. When edits are reverted, the procedure is to discuss the issues on the talk page, and to stay focused on the discussion. Particularly when articles have been stable for some time, patience is needed if changes are disputed. As I mentioned here, you have been subjected to some unpleasantness, but it's pretty minor. The problem appears to me that you are trying to do too much in too short a time. In just over the month since you started editing, there are disagreements at History of the Shakespeare authorship question and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates and Shakespeare's religion and Shakespeare authorship question. I suggest focusing on one issue at a time, and if that fails, try WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to notify those editors that you've opened this ANI thread. There's a template you can use; look at the top of the page (I'm sorry I don't have input on the issue itself yet, but that's a step you're required to take when you open an ANI report.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Purplewowies, I was doing that right after I filed. It took about 20 minutes cuz I kept getting interrupted. But it's done. FatGuySeven (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of complaints are familiar to anybody with even a slight acquaintance with this area of Wikipedia, as they seem happen on a regular basis. I'm sure any uninvolved admin who looks over the relevant mainspace histories and talk pages will see what's going on and that FG7 is giving about 30% of the story, so I'll refrain from making this any longer and more tedious than it already is unless you have any specific questions. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But Johnuniq, the articles you mentioned were all reverted by the same editor. I discussed above how many of my contributions, in several articles, were being removed. Also, since you have been participating on the talk pages and on the article, shouldn't I wonder about your motives a little? 😏 No disrespect, as you have been helpful there, but you have also been questioning↓ me on the talk page, right? You must see that those discussions are going nowhere. The offending editor gave me the link to Dispute Resolution, so here I am. FatGuySeven (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not "dispute resolution", content disputes are not handled here, only behavioral problems. What behavioral problems you've alluded to do not seem serious enough to get an admin involved, so if you are unable to reach an agreement with other editors on the articles' talk page, you should head to WP:DR, where content disputes are dealt with -- but you should definitely continue to try and resolve the issues on the talk pages first. BMK (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be a behavioural problem when, in the discussion, the new editor keeps making variations on one or two basic ideas which have been responded to in depth by several experienced editors, asserting that he is being bitten while simply talking past the specific arguments given against his assumptions. This has happened several times already, as a glance at the talk pages will show. It happens to be a well-known characteristic of a school of unorthodox 'thinkers' on the issue. Perhaps that is a coincidence, but I see no evidence that the replies given to queries are understood or even taken seriously. I would add that Shakespeare scholars almost never write 'it's' for 'its' (saw it's material).Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Beyond My Ken, I have moved the content dispute to the appropriate notice board. And I will continue talking, though I continue to be rebuffed and no compromises have been offered. Thank you. FatGuySeven (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insulting material on a user page

Special:Diff/614873443 is User:ScotXW calling other editors names on their user page and making the blanket statement that "Wikipedia is for spreading half-knowledge and FUD for half-wits". Per WP:POLEMIC, I've removed the insulting part of it. ScotXW has a history of very constructive editing, but also of using this user page to polemicize against various topics, including other editors.

(The edit that ScotXW refers to actually seems legit at first sight, but I haven't been involved with the GUI widget page at all — I've been following ScotXW's page since I was targeted in a polemic.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope this incivility is an isolated incident and that we can carry on editing the encyclopedia. If ScotXW is just blowing off steam and this is not a pattern of behavior then there is no need for admin action. If this turns out to be an ongoing pattern of uncivil behavior that needs to be prevented then it becomes an admin matter.

Did you try talking to this user on their talk page about this? I don't see it, perhaps I am missing it. That would be the first step. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See the user's talk page, in particular the sections User talk:ScotXW#Your list of "deletion heros", User talk:ScotXW#"Deletion heros", again, User talk:ScotXW#Non-collegial behavior, and this rather uncivil way of pointing out an (actual) flaw in an article. The user has also recently been blocked for edit warring. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Next step: WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 18:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

TheMindCrapAddict block evasion

TheMindCrapAddict (talk · contribs) was blocked by Callanecc as a vandalism-only account, after which TheMindCrapAddict posted on my talk page on the Minecraft wiki their intent to register at least one new account to "complain about [Callanecc]". 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure we can't help you here; you'll need someone with more advanced tools. Probably best to go to WP:SPI to request assistance. Of course, if someone new pops up to complain about Callanecc without any warning or reason, we ought to look closely at that account. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI filed. Thanks for the pointer. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP on Hyuna-related articles

IP 79.7.156.70 (latest one used) is disrupting many articles by adding unsourced sales, incorrect chart data and arbitrary secondary single release dates, focusing on articles: Hyuna discography, 4Minute discography, Bubble Pop!, Melting (EP), Ice Cream (Hyuna song).

After several warnings, IP has evaded and reposted from the following sites: 79.54.164.27, 79.20.135.173, 79.51.157.11, 94.192.128.66, 94.167.215.248, 79.54.134.86, 79.54.133.178, 82.48.110.230, 79.45.167.222

Please help. The person is getting out of control! Thanks! -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfair conduct in a deletion battle

There is a deletion discussion regarding History of the Jews in Nepal. In good faith, I tried to improve the article to spare it from deletion by adding referenced content. Another contributor, @Ubikwit:, persistently reverts my additions here, here, here, and here. When an article is on the chopping block, constructive additions should not be themselves chopped.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given Ubikwit a 3RR-warning based on the page history. Don't interpret that as me supporting the article, though, because it seems a bit "thin", so nominating it for deletion discussion was probably the right thing to do. Reverting any and all attempts to improve the article during the deletion discussion was IMHO not the right thing to do, though. Thomas.W ^talk 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy, will reply to this later. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the four separate reverts over a period of several days pertain to four respectively different blocks of text, all of which were inserted in the article against the various policies cited, and do not represent history.

The material added by the OP was fringe, peripheral, or completely unrelated to the subject of the article, such as the material in the last diff, which relates to Bnei Menashe, a group of recent converts to Judaism in India surrounded by some controversy.

Though I informed him of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, as he doesn't seem to understand the concept of history, not to mention policies such as WP:RS, he continued to insert similarly unrelated, unreliably sourced, and fringe material in a tendentious manner, without discussion on the Talk page, subverting the BRD cycle.

The AfD discussion is here, and I have queried the closing admin in relation to his judgement as to the consensus. He closed the AfD as a "Clear policy-based "keep"".

Meanwhile, the OP also linkspammed the "Jewish diaspora"[67] and Ten lost tribes[68] articles. After that he added fringe material not even supported by this unreliable website or this blog, this ref, or ref. Every single one of those sources in unreliable for just about anything on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the HP blog). They were added to support a promotional statement to which the OP apparently has an emotional attachment.

I have dealt with a number of similar editors on Ten lost tribes related pages over the past couple of years, but few as persistent as the OP.

Some of the material he added was offensive to other religious traditions, namely Hinduism and Buddhism. Some of it still remains in the article in slightly modified but still unacceptable form

Some legendary material links the first residents of Nepal to descendants of the concubines of Abraham, as well as legends that early Jewish influence played a role in the origination of the caste system in Nepal and India, and that the etymological roots of the word Brahmin can be traced to early Jewish origins.

, while another statement on Buddha has been removed, and is quoted in this thread at the fringe noticeboard.

Regarding the first statement, User:Ravpapa seems to suggest that maybe Birnbaum was being misrepresented here. And the original text of the OP was modified here by User:Smeat75.

I should note that the source in question is in Hebrew, and since I don't speak Hebrew I've no been able to evaluate it myself with regards to reliability, though I accept Ravpapa's use for noncontroversial facts.

Apparently he is here trying to complain about "unfair" conduct "deletion battle" in order to win a content dispute. His battle mentality is evident. The four reverts over a period of six days certainly do not violate the spirit of WP:EW policy, and I certainly didn't come close to breaching 3RR. Moreover, material offensive to Buddhism was removed, and the material related to Nepalese as descendants of "Abraham's concubines" and the etymology of the word Brahmin should also be removed as offensive to the sensibilities of Nepalese people and followers of Hinduism, and are exceptional claims. So is the claim about the caste system.

In this regard, I cite from WP:RS

Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:12, 11:30 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have now accused User:Thomas.W of possible "stalking" you. [69] is your "stalking warning" to that editor with whom you have had zero other interactions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that I was not aware of his comment at this AN/I thread when I left that warning. Meanwhile, there has been zero interaction between TW and me outside of AN/I, commencing with his first baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me in the thread I filed against you several days ago, as you are well aware. So what is your point? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Accusing me of stalking you is just a load of BS. I commented on the previous ANI-case involving you, correcting a couple of misconceptions you had regarding the process here, and then issued a 3RR-warning to you based on the page history of the article that this ANI-case is about, but apart from that I haven't interacted with you in any way anywhere on WP. So your accusation is totally baseless. Unfortunately baseless accusations against everyone who doesn't agree with you are a frequent part of your uncollegial behaviour here on WP, a behaviour that is totally unacceptable. And, as was pointed out to you in the previous ANI-case, if everyone disagrees with you, the problem most likely doesn't lie with everyone else, but with you. Thomas.W ^talk 11:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: Claiming that the edits you reverted are badly sourced or fringe is no excuse for edit-warring, it's just a content dispute that should be taken to the talk page of the article. The only reverts that don't count against the three-revert rule are reverts of blatant vandalism, as defined by Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Thomas.W: First, I did not accuse you, I warned you to be wary of engaging in such behavior, as at the time I saw your warning I was not aware of your comment here, so again you fail to assume good faith.

Secondly, I was not at 3RR on that page, having made four reverts over a period of 6 days. 3RR warnings are generally issues at 3RR.

Finally, your first interaction with me on WP was to level this baseless accusation of WP:OWN. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You had two reverts within 24h and one just outside 24h, and showed no sign of intending to stop. Also note that the AfD-discussion has just been closed as keep, with this comment by the closing admin: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep". A comment that criticises your behaviour/reverts on the article. Thomas.W ^talk 12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are persistent, aren't you? With green text no less.

If you were a little more thorough in your investigating, you would have noted my comment above related to the close, and found this.

The closer has yet to respond to the query, which is standard procedure when the judgment of the closer of an AfD is called into question for possible review. Obviously I disagree with that close, as well as the accusation of disruption. The OP of this thread was tendentiously adding fringe and unrelated material to the article in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD. The close will be subject to review.

The assertion that I "showed no sign of intending to stop" is another baseless accusation by you. See WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be very fond of wikilawyering, but you're not very good at it; in several cases obviously not even having read the policies you refer to. Because the only one here showing battlegrund mentality is you. Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reference: User_talk:Ravpapa#Birnbaum_source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • • Note to admins Tomwsulcer has now removed the contentious material from the article [70], which is an appropriate and welcome act, and I thank him for doing so. There hadn't been any real complaint about my conduct other than a weak EW claim, so I request that this be closed. Should Thomas.W persist in his demeanor toward me, I'll request a one-way IBAN be placed on him. I have never interacted with the guy on WP outside of this venue, when he leveled the above-diffed baseless accusation of WP:OWN against me. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously requesting an interaction ban against me for comments about your behaviour, made in two threads on ANI? Get real, dude. Thomas.W ^talk 12:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefaced that with "Should he persist", dude. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since our only interactions ever have been here on ANI, and a 3RR-warning because of a discussion here on ANI, I interpret that as you intending to request an interaction ban against me if I continue making comments about your behaviour here on ANI, in a case filed against you because of your behaviour. That's not what interaction bans are for, dude, you're fair game here as long as the comments are civil,as mine always are. Thomas.W ^talk 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", you made a baseless accusation related to an activity that presumes an intimate familiarity with my editing: WP:OWN. Your second interaction with me was also in relation to a filing here at ANI, which I gather you are an avid monitor of. Although you are permitted to monitor my edits, comment on talk pages of articles I edit, etc., you are not permitted to make baseless accusations out of the blue without evidence. The next time you do that I will file a report about you here, and request the one-way IBAN. I find nothing civil about your tone. You are "fair game", too. And please don't call me "dude" again.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to file whatever complaint you want, but don't forget to read the page you quoted without having read it before you do. Thomas.W ^talk 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Without attempting to excuse any improprieties that may or may not have occurred in this episode, I think it is important to understand the surrealistic editing environment in which it took place. The article History of the Jews in Nepal began its life as a coat-hanger to tell the story of a Passover Seder in Katmandu, attended by 1500 Israeli backpackers, sponsored by Chabad, an orthodox Jewish religious organization. In the course of the deletion debate, various items were added and deleted to give the article the appearance of a real article. Among the things added:

• There is no Jewish community in Nepal, and never was one.
• About 20,000 Israeli tourists visit Nepal every year.
• There is a legend about the ten lost tribes of Israel settling in various parts of India, but not in Nepal.
• An Israeli mountain-climber once gave up his dream of scaling Mount Everest in order to rescue another climber.

In the debate, the opponents of deletion - all of whom spend a not inconsiderable portion of their time editing articles related to the Chabad movement - argued passionately that this big Passover celebration in itself constituted an historical Jewish presence in this Jewless land. They took umbrage at some of the more pointed criticisms of the article, claiming they were "anti-Jewish" and "a mockery of Jews, Jewish Passover rituals, the Chabad people". The atmosphere was intense.

It is clear to anyone whose sight is not clouded by ideology that this ten tribes legend, irrelevant to Nepal, has no place in the article. But then, it is also clear that this article has no place in Wikipedia.

As I said at the outset, I don't attempt to excuse improprieties like edit warring, but I think that admins should take into account the surreal situation in deciding on any sanctions. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there will be any sanctions. The edit-warring and disruption of the AfD-procedure stopped, the AfD has been closed and Ubikwit's tactics, with repeated baseless accusations and attempts to stifle discussion by threatening to file complaints at ANI or whatever against anyone who disagrees with him/her, have been seen by more admins/editors than before. So all is well, and this discussion can, IMHO, be closed and archived too. Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Destruction

Nominations withdrawn, all done here, nothing more to see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone is demanding to delete **every** elelmtn article. A user is asking to delete the hydrogen box. Please fix and shut down the discussion before we lose all that information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.34.179 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Some more information would be beneficial, a diff of a revision or a talk page name. Amortias (T)(C) 19:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently this is User:Ricky81682, hes taken the templated to WP:TFD so this probably doesnt need anything doing here as it will be dealt with over there. Amortias (T)(C) 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Interesting. I'd guess the issue is Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Infobox_hydrogen or Template:Infobox hydrogen although given the way the discussion is going, the anon has little to worry about from me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614806482 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614807044 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_28&diff=prev&oldid=614808289 Ricky81682 has been busy nominating everything imaginable for deletion. It looks like he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I did a quick check and found that he was nomming dozens of untouched userspacedrafts for MFD ... some of which had not been touched since 2009. Not sure that's either pointy or disruptive the panda ₯’ 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer people to AGF but it's Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009 Panda. I'm not sure how three comments from the same discussion constitute an issue but I seem to have struck quite a nerve when I entered into the chemistry templates in contrast to other policy-related nominations. If asked, I'd say that my nominations here, here, here, here, and here amongst others show my policy view that WP:T3 and Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines discourage the use of hiding article content via templates. Excluding the chemistry element templates wherein asking that the infoboxes be put in the articles themselves, like *every* other article I can think of, leads to a series of personal attacks and accusations, I think my record stands for itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I think Panda was assuming good faith. The way I see their comment is that they don't think you were being pointy or disruptive. However, correct me if I'm wrong. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was unclear. Panda was assume good faith, I know, just providing context. I think this says otherwise as to other editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) How about doing something useful instead of being massively disruptive? Nobody cares what you think, you're wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.34.179 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Alright, I've had enough of this. I'll withdraw both nominations. You all win. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

alcohol (drug) and related changes to "over 100 articles" - User talk:David Hedlund‎

I am unsure this is the correct venue. However, I see at alcohol (drug) "The name of this article, alcohol (drug), will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug." and "I replaced "alcohol or drugs" with "alcohol or other drugs" in over 100 articles." and this seems to be a clear statement of intent to pursue a specific point of view. Articles changed include Andy Rooney and Sleep, which by odd coincidence are both on my watch list. This seems incorrect. I tend to support the PoV but... I accept that it is a PoV. I noted on User talk:David Hedlund‎ that I was making this note to bring attention to the issues.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• It would help if you would provide some diffs of this alleged conduct. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Enjoy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I have been looking at these and rolling back some. Others are adding links, albeit to the wrong target. At some point editors need to loot at all of the inbound links for alcohol (drug) and remove any that are not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

{ec}This is probably an issue of WP:POV violations. I noticed one on my watch list which was totally inappropriate. I never thought that it was part of a mass change! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Spot checking a few of these, there are problems with the mass changes. We have alcohol (drug) which refers to any alcohol that has certain medical effects, and then we have alcoholic beverage which are specificlly about drinks that contain alcohol. Most of the changes that are being made are really pointing to the latter, people using the beverages, and not their medical use of such. A lot more care has to be done here. (BTW, did you notify David of this discussion?). I will note that alcohol (drug) seems properly named - it is about the class of medical drugs, but the careless linking to it instead of the beverage article is what is creating the POV here. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Notified. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, Unfriend14, have you been on Wikipedia before - under another name, perhaps? Because your talk page seems to indicate that... [71]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just gone through every one of the additions of the link alcohol (drug) made by David Hedlund (as I discussed on User talk:David Hedlund#Alcohol (drug)) and reverted/revised several of them. Fortunately, most of them seemed to be OK, as the context was drug-related, medicine-related, or related to regional alcohol laws. Some links to alcohol (drug) simply added a link were none existed before, and for the most part those were harlmess and OK in context. Others, however, were clearly out of context or reduced precision, and I reverted those. I noticed I wasn't the only one reverting. I also saw some evidence of POV pushing with a couple of statements characterizing wine as a drug that clearly misrepresented the cited source, and reverted those too.

This was quite time consuming, but appears to be cleaned up now for the most part. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you went through all of them, you missed some. In may cases we have beverage articles and clearly the link should be to alcoholic beverage and not to a drug. I really love the one I just fixed where Alcoholic beverage was changed to drug and the next link to non-alcoholic beverage was left along. Clearly in context, the beverage link was correct. So more reviews need to take place. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, actually I didn't miss those. I wavered in my temptation to revert those, in the sense that there is no need to revert "happy" to "glad" or vice versa. In cases many where "alcoholic beverage" was changed to "alcohol" (with a wikilink to alcohol (drug)), the sentence still made sense, if the point was to consume alcohol in general, rather than alcoholic beverages in particular. I have no opinion on what is better, so in most cases I left them alone. If you reverted them, that's fine too. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going through them all. Because this complaint sounded familiar I did an AN search and found this fairly recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Return to David Hedlund --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which was in reference to an earlier thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Copy-paste_tracking. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed Terry Kath has had the same thing happen ([72]) and I see he's hit a few hundred articles just this morning. Do we have communication problems here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Nick: Hes death involved alcohol (a drug), not water intoxication. So whats wrong with putting alcohol in this context? --David Hedlund 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked David until he's prepared to engage with the discussion here. He was still hitting articles at quite some pace as I was blocking him, sorry I'm afraid there's a number of reverts that might need to be made. Nick (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And now unblocked so he can participate here, on the understanding he won't make similar edits until he has discussed the issue. Nick (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not so much the content, which I'm welcome to discuss on Talk:Terry Kath, but rather you carried on making controversial edits after other people asked you to take time out and discuss them. As long as you discuss first, we should hopefully reach an agreement. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ok, I have received both Thanks and Reverts. So I am not even allowed to edit medicine-related (eg x is contraindicative with alcohol) articles until you reach a consensus? --David Hedlund 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the interest in alcohol - it looks like you have a specific point of view that you're (intentionally or not) forcing upon the project. I'd also like to know what sources you intend to use for discussing alcohol being contraindictative with (presumably) pharmaceuticals. Nick (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Because I'm very interested in medical writing. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Having had one of these pop up on my watchlist and having then examined and reverted several on an item-by-item basis, I have to say I discern a POV element that sometimes descends to the level of disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. At Vínbúð (reverted by another editor), Sprecher Brewery, If-by-whiskey, Strip club, Drive-through, and Mpongwe people, for example, the context is very clearly that of beverages - explicitly in the title in the first three cases. In other cases such as Bridgewater State University I hesitate to point out other means of alcohol delivery that are without a doubt not covered, on grounds of WP:BEANS. At School district drug policies the editor changed the wording to include alcohol under drugs, at Drug possession the editor inserted an aside about this one legal drug into the lede's restriction of the topic to illegal drugs, and at Gateway drug theory the editor shuffled exposition and examples so as to present alcohol as less licit than cannabis. I haven't looked at the medical articles, where there might be a better prima facie case for changing the link from Alcohol or Alcoholic beverage or for adding a link to the Alcohol (drug), but the edits I have looked at plus the response above suggests to me that the editor cannot edit neutrally on the topic of alcohol. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir, Nick, Ritchie333, and Rhododendrites: I will edit more careful now after I've listen to you guys. Can you please give me a chance to add alcohol (drug) to 10 more articles so you can reevaluate if I can edit neutrally? I have 1500 articles left to read to make a decision if this term comes in context. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. The popular convention for disagreements over content is bold, revert, discuss. You made an edit, somebody else reverted, then you talk about the differences. So, what I would rather see is you opening one talk page discussion, resolving that content dispute, then moving onto the next. I've started a conversation at Talk:Terry Kath#Alcohol and drugs, which will hopefully resolve the dispute on that article. It won't, however, cover the other 1,499 articles you were thinking of looking at. Frankly, I'd give up on the idea of changing that many articles completely in any definite timeframe, because now it's been brought to the attention here, it's unlikely you'll be able to do it without somebody thinking you're being disruptive - and that comes with a risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I made this new edit[73] but wont make any further of this kind as long as you don't give me feedback on it. I won't add "alcohol (drug)" in non-medical articles from now on. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 17:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now an additional component to this. It seems that there are changes to the use of {{Psychoactive substance use}} and {{Alcohealth}}. In some cases this is being replaced by {{Alcohol (drug)}}. In some cases the order of the entries is changed giving priority to the new template. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the template to its original form at {{Alcohol and health}} and reverted Hedlund's edits to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also this is a bit circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether to bring up the fact that the article to which all these links have been made is a recent creation out of a redirect. It's been marked as non-neutral and there are a couple of relevant sections on its talk page. ... I continue to revert/change the links on a case by case basis and I see others are doing so too, with emphasis on the non-medical articles. Some I've left unchanged, as Amatulic mentions having also done. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between alcoholic beverage and alcohol (drug) is artificial, and I rather think that everything should be discussed in a single article. The only difference between them is the amount - surely this can be discussed in context (in terms of health effects and recommended limits). JFW | T@lk 20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vnisanian2001

User was recently released from block for a period of 3 months under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The user continues to make edits that do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; the user fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. There have been three WP:ANI (1, 2, & 3) filed against the user in the past 7 months. Additionally, concerns about WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CONCENSUS have been brought forth to the user's attention, to which the user has not responded. The user has been blocked twice before and warned that continuing the same pattern of behavior after release from the most-recent block would "likely lead to an indefinite block".

Below are additional edits made by the user following the recent release of the block that continue to follow the same pattern of behavior:

• Eight Is Enough: Revision as of 14:28, June 25, 2014—User added filming date of "February 23-March 4, 1977", but the reference linked in the user's edit does not provide WP:V of this information. Similar edit to same article adds a filming date of "February 08-17, 1978" and linked a call sheet for taping, but the call sheet is dated "2/9/78" and does not reference tapings on other days. Third and fourth edits add unreferenced taping dates each time.
• Dog Eat Dog (1964 film): Revision as of 09:33, June 24, 2014—User added voice actor of Dan Sturkie & voice actress of Carolyn De Fonseca associated with roles played by other actors, and did not include a reference for either. Article for Carolyn De Fonseca mentions this film, but mentions of her work on Dog Eat Dog are not referenced. Even taking into account WP:CITEIMDB, the film is not listed on De Fonseca's page there, either. Similar edits to The Great Alligator River and Torso (1973 film) follow the same pattern of adding an unreferenced voice actress to a different actress portraying the character in the film.

AldezD (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment—User's edit to my talk page following notification of ANI—in which the user argues WP:OTHERSTUFF and does not address the WP:V/WP:REF issues here—is further evidence this user fails to meet WP:COMPETENCE. User then blanked my talk page following multiple individual edits. AldezD (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Given the user name it is possible to surmise the poster is young and not yet ready to edit collaboratively GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chaurasia

• Deepak Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:98.247.122.221 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP editor has repeatedly added material to this article that violates WP:BLP, namely poorly-sourced accusations of wrongdoing. Here's the latest diff[74]. The editor was blocked twice for making these edits and has come back after the blocks to make the exact same changes. The editor has not responded to posts on either his talk page or on the article talk page. Admin assistance is requested. GabrielF (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's more than one IP throwing BLP-violating material on the article. I see no fewer than 7 IPs on that page with edits getting reverted since February. Might be time for semi protection? It's pretty slow-moving though; protection of less than a month seems like it wouldn't prevent much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are reliable sources it seems. I rewrote it here to accurately reflect what the text says (WP:UNDUE is another problem though). I hope that's acceptable. Between a political party and a guru, I'm not particuarly surprised but I don't think protection is necessary, just a reminder that the anonymous users needs to be very specific about what has happened if they want to include allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please edit this to avoid close paraphrasing? The source says: "The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on Monday filed a defamation case against India News editor-in-chief Deepak Chaurasia and two others, alleging that they conducted a fake sting operation to harm the reputation of the party." Your text: "In November 2013, the Aam Aadmi Party national secretary filed a defamation claim again Chaurasia alleging that they conducted a fake sting operation to harm the party's reputation." Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue this on the page itself. I fleshed out more details from the Aam Aadmi Party page so it should be less paraphrased. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Given the apparently extensive history of prior problems (four separate incidents of semiprotection during the last 12 months) I have indef-semiprotected the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing at the Laci Green-article

• Laci Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Laci Green -article is heavily edited by several WP:SPA’s. Ms Green once said something that is perceived as offensive by some transgenders, and now it appears that those who feel insulted are busy with WP:POV-pushing. These SPA’s are: User:Sveltewallet, User:Tjmarquesha, User:Jsbsocbsnald, User:Feminismrox566 and User:Lighthousemania. I do not think that is right. Should we semi-protect the page? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can hear some rather loud quacking GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing at Split infinitive by single-purpose account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Der Grammarkönnig has been persistently either adding dubious unsourced material, or removing sourced material they disagree with, from the split infinitive article. I'm on my phone right now, so I apologize for not providing diffs. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dysfunction

Why is this website so totally dysfunctional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.245.195 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

One problem is contributors who act like others are mind-readers.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Probable troll account

UltraTrollMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First edit is this bit of vandalism at "Skeleton". A later edit would appear to be in good-faith (if a bit misguided) except for prior obsession with skeleton-related vandalism, and, of course, his username, UltraTrollMan. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User name reported at WP:UAA. The actual trolling is a separate issue, because the editor could resolve the problem with the name by changing the user name and continuing the trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Long-term unsourced additions by an IP 94.193.131.142

Can someone please have a word with / block this guy. 94.193.131.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is bulk adding / deleting / changing minor information about a series of Royal Navy ships - mostly to do with their service history. It looks as if they're naval themselves (they're posting from a town where nearly everyone is naval or so connected) and there is no reason to doubt their GF or particularly their accuracy. However they're also doing it without any attempt at sourcing or citation. Despite many attempts to encourage them to discuss this, they remain silent through talk: I regret escalating this, and I think their changes are probably correct, but we do have policies on citation and a culture of discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. They've been blocked in the past and there's both a bunch of warnings on their page and a spate of recent edits in spite of the same. I'd generally prefer that we let editors add material in good faith and source as we go along, but the volume is a little much to handle. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)